West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/17/2017

Sri Shyampada Pahan - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

26 Jul 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.                             

Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

Pulak Kumar Singha, Member

And

Sagarika Sarkar, Member

    

Complaint Case No.17/2017

 

    Sri Shyampada Pahan , S/o-Late Ashutosh Pahan,

Vill & P.O.-Amdai & P.S.-Jhargram,

Dist-Paschim Medinipur…..………Complainant

Versus

1. The Assistant Engineer, Station Manager, WBSEDCL, Manikpara, P.S.-Jhargram,  Dist-Paschim Medinipur
2. The Circle Manager,  WBSEDCL, Burdge Town, Midnapore  Dist-Paschim Medinipur …………………….Ops.

 

For the Complainant:  Mr. Somasish Ponda, Advocate.

For the O.P.             :  Mr. Sarnendu Parial, Advocate.                     

                                                 Decided on: - 26/07/2017                              

                                                ORDER

            Pulak Kumar Singha, Member : 

 

            Complainant files this case u/s-12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

             In brief the case of the complainant is that the complainant  is the consumer of  O.Ps. and consumer I.D. no.212027909.  Complainant paid electric bill up to the month of February 2015.  The meter in question was defective and the said matter was intimated to the O.P. no.1 and said meter was inspected by the person of O.P. no.1 but they did not change the defective meter.  O.P. no.1 raised bills on average basis since 2015 along with outstanding dues.  O.P. no.1 send a bill of Rs.3,92,246/- on 23/02/2015 with installment facility of Rs.13,084/- would be paid each month. Complainant paid first installment of

                                                                                                                                                                                      Contd…………P/2

 

 

( 2 )

Rs.13,084/-on 23/02/2015 vide money receipt no.1820245.  The said total bill was exorbitant.  Complainant is ready to pay the correct bill.  The said huge amount of bill was prepared without meter reading.  Subsequently, O.P. no.1 change the defective meter but sending earlier bills were not prepared with proper meter reading and O.P. did not pay heed to the complain of the complainant.  Finding no other alternative complainant appeared before this Forum for obtaining relief as prayed for.

            O.Ps have appeared and contested this case by filing written objection, denying the allegations of complainant stating inter alia that the electric connection of the complainant is for the purpose of agriculture use, the electric meter is lying on a electric poll and there is no shed over the meter.  The said meter was in running condition up to November 2015 but from the month of December meter in question found defective.  At the time of defective meter the bill was generated as per norms of W.B.E.R.C. Electric bills before December 2015 were generated against actual meter reading.  The O.Ps have no deficiency in service.  The O.Ps pray for dismissal of the case.

 

                                                  Points for decision :   

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable?
2. Whether there is deficiency in service of O.Ps?
3. Is the complainant entitled to get an order as per prayer of the complainant?    

 

Decission with Reasons

         In the instance case cause of action arose from 23/02/2015 and subsequent dates of correspondence with the O.Ps.  This complaint is filed on 06/02/2015 and it is within two years as per C. P. Act.  So, this case is maintainable.  The issue no.1 is in favour of complainant.

Regarding point no.2:

         Deficiency in service of O.P., we have perused the complaint documents, written objection and evidence.  Complainant submitted that his electric meter was defective from December 2014 and informed the matter to O.Ps but O.Ps. but O.Ps. did not change the defective meter.  Complainant files some bills where it  reveals that up to 26/10/2016, O.Ps raised bills as per meter reading alongwith outstanding bills from December 2014 which is carry forwarded the current bills.  Bill dated 30/12/2016, it

                                                                                                                                                                                      Contd…………P/3

 

 

( 3 )

appears that unit consumption shown as 0.00 unit as the meter detected defective and O.Ps. also admit it.  From December 2015, bills were raised by O.Ps on average basis.  Complainant submitted that he paid bill upto 2015 and subsequently one installment of Rs.13,084/- has been paid on 23/02/2015.  Complainant also submitted that O.Ps raised bills dated 13/03/2015, 21/07/2015, 29/09/2015 and other dated bills in the year 2015, where complainant submits that those bills were prepared without meter reading and O.Ps send those bills which are erroneous bills.  But complainant did not produce those period bills before us rather it appears from the statement of those bills that all the bills are carrying huge outstanding.  Moreover  complainant stated in his complaint that O.Ps send a bill of Rs.3,92,246/- on 23/02/2015 but complainant did not file that bill before us. O.Ps. filing written objection submitted that electric connection of complainant  is used for the  purpose of agriculture use and the meter was in running condition upto  November, 2015  and O.Ps. raised the correct bills as per meter reading. Ops. raised bills from December, 2015  to March,  2015 on average basis. O.Ps. replaced new meter in place of defective meter on 23/03/2016 and again bills are prepared according to meter reading. O.Ps. submitted at the time of defective meter the bills were generated as norms of W.B.E.R.C. according to seasonal estimated consumption on 27/12/2015, 22/01/2016, 27/02/2016 and 19/03/2016. O.Ps. submitted a notification no.36/WBSERC dated 12/09/2007 where it reveals in rule 3.6.1. Consumer shall pay provisionally for such consumption  of electric for the period during which the  meter has been suspected to have been defective or defunct. On the basis of average consumption.

We find from the case record that complainant did not adduce any cogent evidence on his behalf to establish that O.Ps. were negligent of deficient in  service by sending in correct and abnormal bills.  So, the issue of deficient in service is against in favour of complainant.

In view of the discussions here in above we think that complainant did not pay the bills of said meter in time so, unpaid bills are carry forwarded and gradually it reached a huge amount as outstanding with current bills.  O.Ps. raised bills on average basis during the period of defective meter as per norms of W.B.S.E.R.C.  So, we find that this O.Ps. are not deficient in service  as such complainant is not entitled to get  any relief as per prayer of his  complait.  

The complaint case fails   

                                                                                                                                                                                      Contd…………P/4

 

 

( 4 )     

 

                                      Hence, it is,

                                                          ORDERED,

                                      That the complaint case be and the same is dismissed without cost.                                          

                

Dictated and Corrected by me

         

               

               Member                                 Member                          President

                                                                                               District Forum

                                                                                            Paschim Medinipur