FINAL ORDER
ASISH KUMAR SENAPATI, PRESIDING MEMBER.
This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.
The Secretary Sarfia High Madrasah (H.S.) (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against the Station Manager WBSEDCL, Bhagwangola CCC (here in after referred to as the OP) alleging deficiency in service.
The sum and substance of the complaint case is as follows-
The Complainant is the Secretary of Sarfia High Madrasah (H.S.) and the school is a valid consumer of electricity having consumer ID No. 31343431. The school has a strength of more than 3000 students. The Complainant used electricity and paid the bills reading of the yellow card but on 08.09.2016 the man of the OP on duty came and noted the consumer unit as 47561 though previous reading was 4488 units as on 13.07.16. The school authority was shocked and surprised and made a prayer with the OP dated 02.08.2016 for proper investigation about the matter. The OP without making any investigation sent a letter to the Complainant vide letter dated 25.11.2016 asking it to make payment of Rs.4,33,015/- within 06.12.2016. The OP has deficiency in service. The Complainant prayed for a direction upon the OP to make proper investigation over the matter and to rectify the bill. The Complainant also prayed for a direction upon the OP to pay cost of this case.
The OP put its appearance and filed written version on 08.02.2017 contending that the complaint is not maintainable as the Complainant in not a consumer under the CP Act,1986. It is the specific case and the OP that the petitioner is a consumer of electricity through consumer ID No. 313343431 and a bill was generated on 29.07.16 with consumption unit of 41305 units and as the petitioner did not pay the amount till 25.11.2016, the disconnection notice was served upon the Complainant asking it to pay Rs.4,33,015.41/- by 06.12.2016 but the OP has not disconnected the electric connection for the interest of students. The technical stuff of the OP checked the meter and found that the bill raised as per consumption and the meter was not defective. The Madrasah consists of more than 3000 students so the consumption reflected in the previous bills is correct. There is no deficiency on the part of the OP. The OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
On the basis of the above versions following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case.
Points for decision
- Is the Complainant a consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?
- Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the OP, as alleged ?
- Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?
Point No.1
The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the Complainant is a consumer as Sarfia High Madrasah (H.S.) has an electric connection having consumer ID No. 313343431.
In reply, the Ld. Advocate for the OP has submitted that the Complainant is a consumer. Having gone through materials on record, we find that the Complainant is a consumer in terms of the provision of CP Act,1986.
Point No.2
The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that this Forum has both territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. He argued that the cause of action arose within territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and the disputed amount is also within pecuniary limit of the District Forum.
The Ld. Advocate for the OP has not stated anything on this point.
After a careful consideration over the materials on record, we find that this Forum has both territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
Point Nos. 3 & 4
The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the OP has deficiency in service. It is argued that the disputed bill dated 29.07.2016 indicated the previous reading unit 4325 and present reading 45630 and as per present meter reading date was 27.07.2016 (Annexture 1). It is urged that the yellow card (Annexture 1) reflects the previous reading dated 15.04.2016 was 4325 and the reading dated 13.07.2016 was 4428 but there was no reading noted in the yellow card on 27.07.2016 as reflected in the bill dated 29.07.2016 (Annexture 2). He argues that the OP has deficiency in service as the reading units as reflected in the yellow card and the disputed bill is different. It is urged that the OP has stated that the meter is not defective. He contends that the Complainant is willing to pay the due amount, if installments are allowed without imposing any LPSC.
In reply, the Ld. Advocate for the OP submits that it is true that there are discrepancies in the consumption units noted in the yellow card (Annexture 1) and in the disputed bill ( Annexture 2) but the fact remains that the previous consumption units as noted in the yellow card care are not correct because the Complainant is a school having a strength of more than 3000 students. It is urged that there may be mistake in the noting of units in the meter reading card but the units consume as noted on 24.10.2016 is correct. It is urged that the OP has no deficiency in service.
We have gone through the written complaint, written version, evidence of the Complainant, written argument and xerox copies of documents filed by the Complainant.
Admittedly, the Complainant is a consumer of the OP having consumer ID No. 313343431. It appears from the xerox copies of yellow card and the bill dated 29.07.2016 that meter reading noted as on 15.04.2016 was 4325 units (as per Annexture 1 and Annexture 2) and as per Annexture 2, present reading was noted on 27.07.2016 and reading unit was 45630 but there is no reflection of the said meter reading unit in the yellow card. The Complainant has rightly pointed out how more than 42000 units were consumed within a period of about 3 months. The OP has not explained why there is no reflection of the present meter reading dated 27.07.2016 in the yellow card though it is reflected in disputed bill (Annexture 2). The Ld Advocate for the OP has taken the plea that 200 to 300 units within a period of 3 months as reflected in the yellow card are not correct state of affairs as the Complainant has more than 3000 students who consume electricity. It is the duty of the OP to take meter reading at regular intervals and to note it in the yellow card but in the present case, we find that the OP has not noted the meter reading properly in the meter reading card for which there is a difference in meter reading noted in the yellow card and in the bill (Annexture 2). We find that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP. At the same time, we think that the Complainant may be directed to make payment of electricity charges and the OP may be directed to allow the Complainant to make payment of electricity charges by 12 installments without imposing any LPSC.
Reasons for Delay
The Case was filed and admitted on 05.12.16. The OP contested the case by filing W.V. on 08.02.17.This Forum tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act,1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day orders.
In the result, the Complaint case succeeds.
Fees paid are correct, Hence, it is
ORDERED
that the complaint case be and the same is hereby allowed on contest against the OP without cost. The OP is directed to issue a fresh bill without imposing any LPSC by 30 days from the date of this order by allowing the Complainant to make payment of the due amount by 12 monthly installments. The Complainant is directed to make payment of electricity charges by 12 monthly installments as per fresh bill to be issued by the OP.
Let plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand /by post under proper acknowledgment as per rules, for information and necessary action.
The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:
confonet.nic.in
Dictated & corrected by me.
President.
Member President.
