West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/64/2017

Sri Asish Kumar Santra - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Asim Kumar Dutta

08 Dec 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

Pulak Kumar Singha, Member,

and

Sagarika Sarkar, Member. 

Complaint Case No.64/2017

 

             Sri Asish Kumar Santra, S/o Birendra Santra, Vill. & P.O. Natuk, P.S. Ghatal, District.

                         Paschim Medinipur.                       …………….Complainant.                                                                                                                                    

                                                                              Vs.

              Station Manager/ Superintendent, Birsingha C.C.C., W.B.S.E.D.C.L., at Birsingha, P.O. 

              Birsingha, P.S. Ghatal, District- Paschim Medinipur.

                                                                                                 .....……….….Opp. Party.

                                                    

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

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

 

Decided on: - 08 /12/2017

                               

ORDER

                          Bibekananda Pramanik, President –This consumer complaint u/s 12 of the C.P. Act has been filed by the complainant Sri Asish Kumar Santra against the above named O.Ps, alleging deficiency in service on their part.

               Complainant’s case, in brief, is as follows:-

                Complainant is an unemployed person and for his self-employment, he started cultivation. After necessary permission he obtained electric connection in his Mini Deep Tube Well from the O.P. on 19/12/2007.  Complainant used to deposit all electric bills time to time but due to illness of the complainant he was unable to deposit the bill from the month of January 2016 and for that reason, the O.P. sent one electric bill of

Contd…………………..P/2

 

 

( 2 )

Rs.68,481/- in respect of his consumer ID no.213158356.  Complainant was unable to deposit the bill amount within stipulated time.  Subsequently, he paid the said amount of bill by three installments total amounting to Rs.64,000/- and there was only dues of Rs.4,481/-. On 20/03/2017, the complainant tried to deposit the said balance dues of Rs.4,481/- in the office of the O.P.  At that time, the complainant came to know that at present a sum of  Rs.1,62,653/- is still unpaid by him.  Being requested, O.P. gave him the computerized bill.  After receiving the said illegal bill, the complainant sent a written representation to the O.P. on 22/03/2017 and requested them to verify the meter by expert engineer claiming the meter was defective.  He also requested to change the meter immediately.  O.P. received such representation but they did not take any steps regarding that.  At the time of disconnection, the O.P. sent rental bill month by month to the complainant and the complainant deposited all rental charges and balance dues with installment.  Due to fear of disconnection of electric line, the complainant again sent one representation on 28/03/2017 to the O.P. with a request to verify the bill and to check the meter but till now, the O.P. did not take any action. Hence the complaint, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.

          O.P. has contested this case by filling a joint written objection.  

                Denying and disputing the case of the complainant, it is the specific case of the opposite party that the complainant applied for installment for payment of outstanding dues before the O.P. and the same was granted as per prayer of the complainant and thereafter the complainant has paid a total arrear electric bill of Rs.64,000/-  only by installments.  It is stated that the bill for the period from January, 2017 could not be generated due to system problem and for that reason, the bills for the month of January, 2017 and February, 2017 were prepared on 14/03/2017 showing 29,975 units as total consumption and the consumption amount was Rs.1,58,171.63/-.  After receiving the said bill, the complainant made representation before the O.P. and the O.P. tried to change the meter on 31/03/2017, 06/04/2017 and 17/04/2017 but the complainant restrained the O.P. from checking the meter. The complainant also did not allow the meter reader of the O.P. to take reading of the disputed meter for the next month.  It is stated by the O.P. that there is no deficiency in service or latches on their part and the petition of complaint is therefore liable to be dismissed.

             To prove his case, the complainant Asish Kumar Santra has examined himself as PW-1.  The documents, relied upon by the complainant, were marked as exhibit  1 to 11- series respectively.  On the other hand, O.P.  adduced no evidence.  

Contd…………………..P/3

 

 

 

                                                                                         ( 3 )                                                                

                                                        Points for decision

1. Is the case maintainable in it’s present form and prayer?
2. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
3. Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs, as sought for?    

                   

Decision with reasons

                       Point no.1:-

 

                                   Maintainability of this case has not been challenged at the time of final hearing of this case.  We also do not find anything adverse regarding the maintainability of this case and therefore we are of the view that the present case is well maintainable.

                    Point no. 2:-

               Regarding deficiency in service, it is the specific case of the complainant that the disputed bill dated 14/03/2017 of Rs.1,62,653/- is illegal and therefore he sent several representations before the O.P. for verifying the meter by expert engineer on the ground that the meter was totally defective.  As against this, it is the case of the O.P. that after receiving such representations, they tried to check the meter on 31/03/2017, 06/04/2017 and 17/04/2017 but the complainant restrained the O.P to do any kind of checking of the meter  and for that reason the O.P. was unable to do the needful regarding such allegation.  On this score, we find from the cross-examination of the complainant Sri Asish Kumar Santra that he has admitted that on the basis of complaint regarding defects in meter, employees of the O.P. visited his premises on 3/4 occasions  but he denied that he did not permit them to check the meter.  Since the complainant has admitted in his cross-examination that after receiving his complaint, the employees of the O.P. visited his premises on 3/4 occasions for checking the meter, so the presumption would be that it is the complainant himself who did not allow the employees of the O.P. to check the meter.  So we find that there was no fault on the part of the O.P. in taking action regarding the grievance of the complainant.  Be that as it may, we find from the case record that after appearance of the O.P. in this case and on the date of evidence, Ld. Lawyer for the complainant submitted that the meter in question is defective and to ascertain such defects, the O.P. may be directed to install a check meter.  We further find that vide order no.7 dated 12/07/2017, this Forum directed the O.P. to install a check meter in the premises of the complainant and the complainant was directed to

Contd…………………..P/4

 

( 4 )

co-operate with the officers of the O.P. in such installation of check meter.  Record further reveals that subsequently the O.P. submitted a report regarding such installation of check meter and the result thereof.  From the said report, we find nothing to hold that the meter in question was defective.  Complainant thereafter did not file any application for sending the meter in question to any expert engineer for it’s testing and report.  Since admittedly the complainant, who brought the allegation of defect in meter, did not approach the RGRO in accordance with the Regulation 3.5 and since he did not even pray for appointment of any expert engineer for examination of the electric meter in question, so this Forum has no reason to hold that the O.P. has any deficiency in service and that the disputed electric bill dated 14/03/2017 of Rs.1,62,653/- is illegal.  More so, we find that it is none but the complainant himself in his cross-examination has admitted that at present a sum of Rs.2,32,000/- is still due and payable by him to the O.P. 

                  In the above facts and circumstances, we are unable to hold that the O.P. has any deficiency in service on their part.

               This point is accordingly decided against the complainant.

Point no.3:-

                 In view of out above findings, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.           

              All the points are accordingly disposed of.

              In the result, the complaint case fails,

                                          Hence, it is,

                                                Ordered,

                   that the complaint case no.64/2017  is hereby dismissed on  

                     contest but in the circumstances without cost.

                                  Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

            Dictated and Corrected by me

                     Sd/-B. Pramanik.             Sd/-P.K. Singha           Sd/- S. Sarkar         Sd/-B. Pramanik. 

                          President                          Member                       Member                  President

                                                                                                                                   District Forum

                                                                                                                               Paschim Medinipur