West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/41/2015

Smt. Anima Koley - Complainant(s)

Versus

Station Manager, W.B.S.E.D.C.L. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. A.K.Dutta.

19 Aug 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

Kapot Kumar Chattopadhyay Member

and Debi Sengupta, Member

 

Complaint Case No.41/2015

 

Smt. Anima Koley & others………….………Complainant

Versus

                                                               W.B.S.E.D.C.L……………………..Opp. Parties.

 

For the Complainant: Mr.Asim Kumar Dutta, Advocate.

For the O.P.               : Mr. Swapan Kumar Bhattacherjee, Advocate

 

 

Decided on: - 19/08/2015

                               

ORDER

                 Bibekananda Pramanik, President - Complainant case, in brief, is that  Sadhan Chandra Koley, since deceased, obtained electric connection in his house from  the opposite party. After his demise, the present complainants, being the legal heirs of said consumer Sadhan Koley, since deceased, have been enjoying  the said electric service connection in their house.  On 01/02/10, Sadhan Koley died and the complainants, being his legal heirs, have been enjoying and paying electricity bill in respect of that service connection.  On 01/06/14, the opposite party sent a bill of Rs.33,457/- for three months and seeing such inflated bill, the complainants came to know that the meter was defective.  The complainants then went to the office of the opposite party and challenged  the said bill but the opposite party threatened the complainants that if the bill amount is not paid, then the electric service connection will be disconnected.  Hearing that, the complainants were compelled to deposit the bill amount in the office of the opposite party.  On 8/09/14, the complainant no.3 submitted

Contd…………..P/2

 

                                                          

( 2 )

an application before  the  opposite party thereby challenging the meter in question but even thereafter the opposite party sent another bill dated 29/11/14 amounting to Rs.12,094/- for three months.  After payment of the said amount, the complainants again submitted an application on 18/12/14, thereby requesting the opposite party for installation check meter in their house and they also deposited Rs.100/- towards cost of installing such check meter.  After such installation, it was detected that the existing meter was defective and the opposite party, therefore, installed a new electric meter in the house of the complainant.  It is stated that the complainants had been paying average monthly bill of Rs.3,000/- to Rs.4,000/- per month. For such defective meter, they had to pay excessive amount of bill.  Hence, the complaint, praying for an order directing the opposite party to correct those to inflated bills and for adjusting the excessive amount with the future bills.

 

                 Opposite party has contested this case by filing a written objection.  Denying and disputing the case of the complainant, it is the specific case of the opposite party  that the present complainants are not the consumer and as such the present case  is not maintainable. It is stated that Sadhan Koley, the predecessor of the complainants was the consumer under the  opposite party but suppressing the fact of death of Sadhan koley, the complainants have been enjoying electric service connection in their house.  It is also submitted that the complainants prayed for installation of a check meter in their house on 8/12/14 and the check meter was installed in their house on 11/12/14.  It is, thus, clear that there was no latches or negligence nor deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  Regarding the disputed bill, it is submitted by the opposite party that without any objection, the complainants have paid the amount of those two bills.  The opposite party, therefore, prays for dismissal of the complaint.

 

Point for decision

                              Are the complainants entitled to the reliefs, as prayed for?   

 

Decision with reasons

 It is not denied and disputed that Sadhan Koley, since deceased, was a consumer of electric service connection under the opposite party.   It is also not disputed that the present complainants are the legal heirs of said Sadhan Koley.  At the time of hearing of

Contd…………..P/3

                                                          

 

                                                                                            ( 3 ) 

 

argument, Ld. Lawyer for the opposite party submitted that the present complainants did not apply for mutating their names in place of Sadhan Koley  and therefore they are not consumer of electricity under the  opposite party.  We do not agree with a said submission of the Ld. Lawyer for the opposite party inasmuch as the definition of complainant under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 goes to show that the complainant means and includes the legal heirs and representative of a Consumer. We are, therefore, of the view that the present complaint, filed by the legal heirs of Sadhan Koley, is maintainable in law.

About deficiency in service, we find that admittedly the complainant prayed for installation of check meter in their house on 8/12/14 and on basis of such prayer, the opposite party installed the check meter on 11/12/14.  Therefore, we find that there was no delay or deficiency in service regarding such installation of the check meter.  About the disputed bills, we further find that without any objection the complainants  paid the said amount of electric bill in the office of the opposite party and therefore at the stage, this Forum cannot direct the opposite party for correction of those bills and for adjustment of excessive amount, if any, with future bills.  This Forum is not vested with any such power.  In the above facts and circumstances of the case, it is held that the complaint case stands failed.    

                         Hence, it is,

                                           Ordered,

                                                         that the complaint case no.41/2015 is hereby dismissed on contest but in the circumstances without cost.  

 Dictated & Corrected by me    

                   Sd/-                                                  Sd/-                                                         Sd/-

              President                                              Member                                                President

                                                                                                                                       D.C.D.R.F.

                                                                                                                                 Paschim Medinipur