In the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Murshidabad
Berhampore, Murshidabad.
Case No. C.C/111 /2015
Date of filing: 12/08/2015 Date of Final Order: 19/09/2016
Md. Saiful Mondal,
S/O- Late Tachen Mondal,
Vill.- Alinagar. P.O.-Kaliganj,
P.S.- Domkal,Dist- Murshidabad,PIN.-742305. ……………………………... Complainant
- Vs-
Station Manager,
WBSEDCL, Domkal Customer Care Centre,
P.O.& P.S.-Domkal,
Dist.- Murshidabad.PIN-742303. ………….….………… Opposite Party
Mr.Shib Sankar Das. Ld. Adv.……………………….……………………………. for the complainant
Mr.Siddhartha Sankar Dhar Ld. Advocate…………………………………….for the Opposite Party.
Present: Hon’ble Member, Samaresh Kumar Mitra.
Hon’ble Member, Pranati Ali.
FINAL ORDER
Samaresh Kumar Mitra, Member.
Brief facts of the complaint is that complainant is consuming power for domestic purpose and he received electric bills for the period of July, August and September of 2013 as outstanding bill of Rs.3,378/- and the complainant duly paid the same outstanding bill. The meter of the complainant was stop from 01.10.2013 and the complainant paid the said bill and informed to the OP for replace the said stop meter by written application on 16.07.2014,21.01.2015 and 11.03.2015 and also verbally requested in several time, but no appropriate action taken from the end of the OP. That the complainant received an electric bill of Rs.12,557/-for the period of July to September,2014 as outstanding bill and the complainant further received an electric bill of Rs.6,349.72 for the period from January to March ,2015 as outstanding bill then the complainant prayed to the OP for calculating the bill in relation to actual energy charge but received no response from the end of the OP. The complainant not only harassed but also suffered financially for aforesaid huge illegal and unjustified bill. So he preferred the recourse of this Forum for direction upon the OP to change the meter and correction the electric bill by thoroughly checks and prepared justified bill.
The sole OP appeared before this Forum and filed written version in which he averred that the complainant/petitioner filed an application on11.03.2015 to verify the Meter being No.L871811 and it was found that the Meter is in non-display condition. The petitioner is a defaulter since the bill prepared on the basis of Meter reading dated 14.08.2014 up to this date. The OP assailed that he requested the complainant to pay outstanding dues but he refused and stated that the OP has to correct the previous bills then he would pay the outstanding dues. The petitioner also did not allow the OP to replace the existing meter unless the previous bills are not corrected.
The complainant filed evidence on affidavit in which he demanded that the meter in his service line was out of order but the OP demanded outstanding dues for the period July- September,2013 amounting to Rs.3,378/- which he paid and requested to replace the meter thereafter the OP sent two fictitious & baseless bills having outstanding dues amounting to Rs.12,577/- & Rs.6349.72/- for the periods July to September,2014 & January to March,2015. He filed petitions for replacing the meter but of no result.
The complainant filed written argument which is nothing but the replica of complaint petition.
The argument as advanced by the parties/agents heard in full.
From the discussion herein above, we find the following Issues/Points for consideration.
ISSUES/POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Whether the Complainant ‘Md. Saiful Mondal’ is a ‘Consumer’ of the Opposite Party?
- Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
- Whether the O.Ps carried on unfair trade practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards the Complainant?
- Whether the complainant proved his case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to him?
DECISION WITH REASONS
In the light of discussions here in above we find that the issues/points should be decided based on the above perspectives.
(1).Whether the Complainant Md. Saiful Mondal is a ‘Consumer’ of the opposite party?
From the materials on record it is transparent that the Complainant is a ‘Consumer’ as provided by the spirit of section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. As the complainant herein is enjoying electricity having service connection in his name supplied by the OP Company and it is admitted by the OP Company being the service provider.
(2).Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
Both the complainant and opposite party are residents/carrying on business within the district of Murshidabad. The complaint valued within Rs.20,00,000/-limit of this Forum. So, this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case.
(3).Whether the opposite party carried on Unfair Trade Practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards the Complainant?
The opposite party being the largest Electric Supply Company throughout the state having a lot of offices, power stations, substations and power generating stations decorated with a lot of expert hands and running its business with goodwill for a long period and providing/rendering service for development of society as well as implementing a lot of Govt. Programs. So the role of OP Company for the development of the society is unquestionable.
The O.P. herein is the Station Manager of an office of the largest electric supply company throughout the State of W.B. The Company WBSEDCL running its business throughout the state except territorial jurisdiction of Kolkata Corporation. The O.P. Company providing power in the rural areas in different projects for a long period. That is why the consumers in the rural areas are highly grateful to the Company. While providing powers throughout the state it also suffers from many discrepancies. Like not sending/ preparing bills in due time or sending bills for a period when the powers are discontinued and not taking reading regularly as a result the consumers suffers from paying accumulated units at a higher rate. As a consequence the consumers suffer a lot and make their grievances for remedy.
It appears from the case record that the complainant paid the bill of 07.2013 to 09.2013 amounting to Rs.3378/- on 29.10.2013 but we cannot find the bill which is paid, as a consequence it is not clear to us whether there was any outstanding due or LPSC which is ought to be paid by the complainant. The bill dated 22.04.2015 depicts that energy charge for the period April to June,2015 was Rs.283/- in total but the outstanding dues for the period Oct.2014 to Mar.2015 was Rs.6803.44.
If we go through the written version it appears that the meter in question was in non display on date of visit by the personnel of the OP.
The OP received the petition of the complainant to replace the defective meter but no measure taken by him to provide service to its consumer to avoid the dispute. But he sent average bills not in relation to the meter reading as a consequence the complainant compelled to face the bills showing huge outstanding amounts for which the complainant getting no alternative sought the recourse of this Forum for redressal as prayed in the prayer portion of the complaint.
After perusing the bill dated 29.10.2015 as produced by the OP that a sum of Rs. 14,627.00 was due including the outstanding amount of Rs.12740.00 for Oct.2014- Sept.2015. The complainant did not whisper regarding this bill in his written argument & in the evidence on affidavit.
But there is no such clarification regarding the increase and decrease of outstanding dues by the OP only except verbal argument by the agent of the OP. The arbitrariness of calculating the bills transpires the deficiency of service of the OP. From the power consumption of the complainant it is clear that the complainant is economical in habits while using electricity. Apart from that he maintains the records carefully to proceed with his complaint. On the other hand the OP is very much casual while preparing electric bills and always tried to extract money from their customers by the name of collection of outstanding dues, fuel surcharge with retrospective effect, for which the customer suffers a lot. Only a few persons are aware of their consumption and keeping the records so carefully to get redressal from appropriate authority/body and others become beast of prey.
In pertaining to the above discussion we can say that the OP like the complainant should come with clean hands while preparing bills and they should not demand any money by the name of arrear dues without any clarification. The arrear dues were Rs. 12,577.00 & Rs.6349.72 and as per the petition dated 11.03.2015 the complainant deposited the said outstanding dues. But he did not deposit the dues of Rs.2086/- & Rs.1913/- and filed two petitions in that regard.
After the above discussion we may conclude that the OP is deficient in providing service to this complainant and making bills according to their will so they are directed to change the existing defective meter by a new one & not to serve any notice to this complainant to collect the disputed outstanding dues with a threat to disconnect the service connection. He has liberty to collect the present bills as per the consumption of the complainant.
The inaction/negligence/ discrepancies of the O.P. Company tantamount to deficiency in service for which the consumers are suffering a lot.
4). Whether the complainant proved his case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to him?
The discussion made herein before, we have no hesitation to come in a conclusion that the Complainant could not able to prove his case beyond any doubt and the Opposite Party is not liable to pay any compensation for deficiency of service.
Hence it is ordered that the complaint be and the same is disposed with a direction to the OP with no order as to cost against the Opposite party.
The OP is directed to collect the outstanding dues bill dated 29.10.2015 in 10 installments in 10 equal divisions and change the defective meter by a new one and prepare further bills in accordance with meter reading within 45 days from the date of receiving this order.
The OP is also directed to entertain the petitions of the consumers and take necessary steps for the service of the consumers to avoid the disputes.
Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their Ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/sent by ordinary post forthwith, for information & necessary action.
Dictated and corrected by me.
Member, Member.
