C.F. CASE No.            :  CC/09/29                                                                                                         

 

COMPLAINANT            :  Gurupada Majumder

S/o  Late Jogendra Nath Majumder

Madhubon, NH 34,

P.O. Bhatjangla, P.S. Kotwali,

Dist. Nadia.

 

       –  Vs.  – 

 

OPPOSITE PARTY            : Station Manager, W.B.S.E.D.C.L.

Krishnagar Group Electric Supply,

Ground Floor, Administrative Building, 

Krishnagar, Nadia.  

 

          

PRESENT           :  SHRI DILIP KUMAR BASU              PRESIDENT

       :  KUMAR MUKHOPADHYAY          MEMBER

       :  SMT SHIBANI BHATTACHARYA       MEMBER  

DATE OF DELIVERY             

OF  JUDGMENT             :    29th July, 2009

 

 

:    J U D G M E N T   :

 

The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows.

 

The complainant is a consumer under OP having service connection No. B/C/1012 and consumer No. B042990.   Initially the said meter was used for commercial purpose to run hotel business from the same premises.  Subsequently, the hotel being closed, the OP was informed by the complainant in writing to change the category of service line to domestic connection.

2

The said meter became defective and in such a situation the OP sent bill for Rs. 4,431/- in total for the period from December, 2008 to February, 09 showing average consumption of 900 units which was found absurd.   He wrote to OP which was received by them on 25.03.09 and requested OP to change the defective meter immediately.   The complainant challenged the disputed bill and as such he did not deposit the bill amount.  The OP issued disconnection notice.   

 

The OP, in spite of repeated requests to rectify the disputed bill and to replace the defective meter, did not take any action on that behalf.   And hence this case is filed.  The complainant prayed for order directing the OP to change the defective meter, rectifying the disputed bill, payment for compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for causing harassment and mental agony, and payment of costs.

 

The OP has contested that case by filing written version and denying all material averments of the complainant and stating that the complainant did not pay electricity bill for the period of 03/09 to 05/09 for the consumption of units during the period of 12/08 to 2/09.   The amounts of bill are Rs. 1538/-, 1508/- and 1508/- for the months of 03/09, 04/09 and 05/09 respectively.    

 

OP has stated further that the service connection was initially installed in a hotel but presently, it is used in a school  which was not informed to the supply office.    As per norms, the service connection to school comes under the purview of commercial category.   

 

On 31.03.07 an Inspection Team, on inspection, detected unauthorised extentional of load made by the complainant, which was not informed to the OP.  A quotation of Rs. 9,300/- was raised in this regard as an additional security deposit.

3

OP stated that on 05.03.09 the meter was found 'stop' with the same reading 6310 units which was also registered on 03.12.08.   They further stated that the meter might have been stopped in between the period from 30.08.08 to 03.12.08.  During the period from 23.02.08 to 30.06.08 when the meter was in operation and the consumption was 5875 – 4176 i.e., 1699 units.   Based on such consumption, the OP stated, average 900 units have been charged in the bill under question.

 

The OP stated that the defective meter could not be replaced due to scarcity of meter which would be replaced as soon as the meter would be made available.  

OP has further stated that the average units are adjustable but the complainant has not made any payment towards the bill under question and is enjoying free electricity and depriving the supply company as well as Government in earning revenue.   

OP has stated that the complaint is absolutely false and as such the instant case is not at all maintainable.  He prays for compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- causing mental agony and further prays for dismissal of the case with cost.

 

In view of the above facts and circumstances the following points are taken for proper adjudication.

Point No.1:        Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OP?

Point No.2:        Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for?

 

FINDING WITH REASONS

 

Both the points are taken together for the sake of convenience and for the purpose of avoiding needless repetitions. 

4

 

It is admitted fact that the OP restored electric service connection of the complainant on 04.07.09 during the pendency of the case.  It is also admitted fact that OP raised electric bill under question charging 900 units on the basis of average consumption during the period from 23.02.08 to 30.08.08 when the meter was in operation and the consumption was 1699 units i.e., (5875 – 4176).  

 

Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the OP while making argument cited the regulation 3.6.1 of the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission.  According to said regulation the meter of a consumer if found defective or defunct for a reason other than theft of electricity, the billing for defective meter must be done, inter alia, on the consumption of electricity for preceding 3 months before the meter has been found defective. 

 

Documents on record show that the OP took meter reading on 05.03.09 for the consumption period of December, 08 to February, 09.  The reading was recorded as 06310.   The meter was found stopped.

 

On previous occasion when the opposite party took meter reading on 03.12.08 for the consumption period September, 08 to November, 08, the meter showed the same reading taken on 05.03.09 as 06310.  This situation reveals that the meter remained non-functional on 03.12.08.  Record shows that on 30.08.08 the OP took meter reading for the consumption period June'08, July'08 and August'08 when reading of the meter was recorded as 05875 units.  OP has stated that it is not possible to say on which date the meter has become stopped in between the period from 30.08.08 to 03.12.08.

 

5

It appears that during the period from 23.02.08 to 30.08.08 when the meter was in operation the consumption was (5875 – 4176) 1699 units.  Based on such consumption pattern average 900 units has been charged by the OP in the bill under question.  

Ld. Advocate for OP while making argument stated the determination of average units of 900 units, in the manner that on 30.08.08 the reading was 5875 and on 23.02.08 the reading was 4176, and the difference of reading of two consecutive consumption periods comes to 1699 units, the average of which becomes 847 rounded off to 900 units which was charged in the electric bill under question 

 

It appears that the average has been made by the OP of the reading of two consecutive consumption period instead of taking average of 3 months preceding to the month when the meter has been found defective, which does not appear to be reasonably comparable according to regulation 3.6.1. of the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission. 

 

According to the regulation No. 3.6.1 as stated above average consumption should have been considered for the period from June'08 to August'08, which has come according to record as 608 units as the said meter was in operation during that period.  But OP considered the consumption period from 23.02.08 to 30.08.08 which contradicts and conflicts with the existing regulation No. 3.6.1 as stated hereabove.  

 

Further, the Ld. Advocate at the time of argument stated that as per provisions of the West Bengal Electricity Regulation Commission aggrieved party may lodge a compliant in respect of a disputed / erroneous bill before the appropriate  Forum in terms of the grievance procedure and not before  this  District 

6

Forum.   This District Forum, as such, does not have any jurisdiction to try this case.  Therefore, he stated that the case should be dismissed with cost.

 

So far as the jurisdiction of District Forum in this context is concerned, we may refer to section 3 of the C.P. Act.    The section 3 of the Act provides that the remedy available under this Act shall be taken as additional remedy.   Therefore, the remedy available under this act cannot be governed by any other law.   Hence, the contention of the Ld. Lawyer of the OP in respect of jurisdiction of this Forum is not tenable.    

 

Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and the contention of the OP in calculating the average of the consumption of electricity for two consecutive consumption periods instead of making average of readings of 3 months preceding the month in which the meter was found defective we can say that there is negligence on the part of the OP and as such it is nothing but deficiency in service.

 

Thus, the case succeeds and the complainant is entitled to get relief.

 

Considering the facts of the case our considered view is that if a sum of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only is awarded as compensation then that may mitigate the harassment and mental agony of the complainant.

 

Hence,

Ordered,

That the case be and the same is allowed on contest with a cost of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) only.

7

OP is directed to rectify the disputed bill for the period from December' 08 to February' 09 substituting units 900 by units 608 as discussed in the body of the judgment.

 

The OP is further directed to pay sum of Rs. 6000/- (Rs. 5000/- towards compensation and Rs. 1000/- towards cost) withing 40 days from the date of this order failing which this amount will accrue interest @ 8% per annum from the date of expiry of 40 days as stated above till realization.   

 

As the meter has already been changed no order, however, is passed as to replacement of the defective meter.

 

Hand over a copy of this order to the parties free of cost.

The case is disposed of by 2 months 8 days.

 

 

Dictated and corrected by me.

 

(K. Mukhopadhyay)

    MEMBER

C.D.R.F., Nadia 

(S. Bhattacharya)   (K. Mukhopadhyay)            (D. K. Basu)

           MEMBER            MEMBER             PRESIDENT

C.D.R.F., Nadia              C.D.R.F., Nadia             C.D.R.F., Nadia