C.F. CASE No. : CC/10/18
COMPLAINANT : Ganesh Chandra Sarkar
S/o Late Jaladhar Sarkar
Parichalak & Sabhapati,
Ratan Krishna Bramachari Shil,
Chamta Harishpur, Satsanga Kendra,
Krishnagar, Kotwali, Nadia.
OPPOSITE PARTY/OP : Station Manager,
Krishnagar Group Electric Supply,
WBSEDCL, Bejikhalimore,
Krishnagar, Kotwali, Nadia.
PRESENT : KANAILAL CHAKRABORTY PRESIDENT : SMT SHIBANI BHATTACHARYA MEMBER
DATE OF DELIVERY
OF JUDGMENT : 28th May, 2010
: J U D G M E N T :
In brief, the case of the complainant is that he is the President of Satsangha Kendra, Chamta, Harishpur Krishnagar and he has one electric connection being consumer No. D/081605 under the OP, WBSEDCL. It is his further case that he does not enjoy so much electricity though the OP sent electric bills for different periods at a high rate. On verification of the yellow card it was available that on 27.07.08 the meter reading was only 70, but on 16.12.08 it was noted at 460, on 19.12.08 – 471, on 28.12.08 – 498, on 02.02.09 – 608 on 22.04.09 – 802, on 15.05.09 – 871 and on 05.11.09 it was 1374. According to the reading of the meter OP sent the electric bills and he duly paid those bills. But it is his specific contention that the meter is defective due to which the reading of the meter has increased to a high rate, though he does not use electricity to that extent. So he requested the OP time and again to check the meter and to send correct bills, but to no effect. Thereafter, he sent a lawyer’s letter to this OP on 19.01.10 asking him to examine the meter and to send correct bills, but the OP has not taken any step in this matter. So having no other alternative he has filed this case praying for the reliefs as stated in the petition of complaint.
The OP has filed a written version, inter alia, stating that the case is not maintainable in its present form and nature. It is his submission that this complainant is a consumer under him having service connection No. D/4344 and consumer No. B081605. He has also submitted that after enquiry it is revealed that the complainant has a load at his premises consisting of two ceiling fans, three 100 watt lamps, two tube lights, two 12 watt CFL, one 5 watt CFL and two indicators. He also submits that as per request of the complainant his previous meter was changed because it was found defective. So a new meter was replaced on 24.05.08. Since then the present meter is running well and the bills are being prepared as per reading of the said meter. On 16.12.08, Assistant charge man of this OP supervised and examined the meter of the complainant and found it OK. As the premises was locked, so average bills were sent to the complainant and again on 19.03.10 the meter was checked and found in order. So this complainant cannot agitate before this Forum against these bills which are prepared by the OP on the correct reading of the meter. Besides this he also submits that if the complainant is aggrieved about the bills he may lodge a complaint with the Grievance Redressal Officer of the licensee in respect of any dispute of the billed amount and thereafter to the Ombudsman in appeal against the order of the Grievance Redressal Officer if the consumer is aggrieved by the order of the Grievance Officer. Besides that the consumer should have also approached the electrical Inspector straightway in case there is any dispute in the matter of meter and billing. So he cannot claim any relief praying before this Forum and this Forum cannot entertain this case also. Hence, it is liable to be dismissed against him.
POINTS FOR DECISION
Point No.1: Has the complainant any right to agitate the dispute before this Forum?
Point No.2: Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Both the points are taken up together for discussion as they are interrelated and for the sake of convenience.
On a careful perusal of the petition of the complaint along with annexed documents and the written version filed by the OP and after hearing the arguments advanced by the ld. lawyers for the parties it is available on record that admittedly the complainant is a consumer under the OP who has an electric connection at his premises. The complainant’s specific contention is that the meter placed at his premises has some defects due to which the reading of the meter is not correct and he does not enjoy so much electricity as it is revealed from the reading of the meter. So he has prayed for examining the meter and to send correct bills to him by the OP. In this connection ld. lawyer for the OP has drawn our attention the judgment passed by the Hon'ble State Commission in connection with SC Case No. FA/08/235 dtd. 31.10.08 in which the Hon'ble State Commission has decided “In a case of billing dispute there is no scope for cancellation/rectification of any bill/bills of electricity within the ambit of the COPRA”. Hon'ble State Commission has relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in CHN Vol-1 1997, page 50 (SC) in which the Hon'ble Apex Court decided “The consumer should have approached the Electrical Inspector straightway if he was aggrieved by the bills. The court should have declined to intervene when the consumer approached the court. The court should have directed the consumer to avail of statutory remedy.”
On a careful perusal of the above cited ruling of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the decision of the Hon'ble State Commission, we do also hold that in the present case the complainant consumer has the right to move before the Electrical Inspector straightway regarding his grievances. In the written version the OP has also categorically stated that the complainant consumer can straightway move before the Electrical Inspector if he is aggrieved by the bills prepared and sent by the OP. In the present case, the OP has categorically agitated against the meter reading and preparation of the bills according to the reading of the meter. So he can straightway move before the Electrical Inspector for redressal of his grievances. Ld. lawyer for the complainant frankly submits at the time of argument that in view of the above ruling and the decision of the Hon'ble State Commission this Forum cannot pass any order for cancellation/rectification of the disputed bills as agitated by the complainant.
Therefore, in view of the above discussions and considering the facts of this case, our considered view is that the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for. Rather we hold that he is entitled to move before the Electrical Inspector for redressal of his grievances or to move before, Grievance Redressal Officer of the OP to solve the dispute. In result the case fails.
Hence,
Ordered,
That the case, CC/10/18 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OP without any cost.
The complainant is at liberty to move before the Grievances Redressal Officer of the OP or the Electrical Inspector straightway for redressal of his grievances.
Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.
