IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC/134/2018.
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
03.08.18 09.08.18 12.07.19
Complainant: Masum Sk.
S/o Samsul Sk.
Vill-Kuligram, PO-Kuli,
PS-Farakka, Pin-742202
Dist-Murshidabad
-Vs-
Opposite Party: Station Manager,
Farakka Customer Care Centre, WESEDCL,
VILL+PO+PS-Farakka,
Pin-742236
Dist-Murshidabad,
Agent/Advocate for the Complainant : Sri. Partha Majumder.
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party : Sri. Siddhartha Sankar Dhar.
Present: Sri Asish Kumar Senapati………………….......President.
Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………..Member.
FINAL ORDER
Asish Kumar Senapati, Presiding Member.
This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.
One Masum Sk. (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against the Station Manager, WBSEDCL, Farakka CCC (here in after referred to as the OP) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.
The sum and substance of the complaint case is as follows:-
The Complainant is a consumer of electricity vide consumer ID No. 300816471. The Complainant used to pay electricity bills on regular basis. The OP issued a bill on 14.05.18 amounting Rs.18,073/- for the units consumed 2020. In that bill previous reading was mentioned as 1598 units and the present reading mentioned as 2020units . The consumption as noted in the bill is not actual consumption for which the Complainant made a written complaint on 25.05.18 about such defective bill and as per advice /direction of the OP, the Complainant paid Rs.250/- vide receipt No. 128803377642 dated 25.05.18 for challenging the meter. In spite of that, the OP neither repaired/ changed the defective meter nor rectified the defective bill. The quarterly bill for the months of May, June and July’2017 was for 62 units for three months. On 04.07.18, the Complainant sent a Lawyer’s notice to the OP but the OP did not rectify the disputed bill as per actual consumption or on average basis. The OP has deficiency in service. The cause of action of the present case arose in May’2018. Hence, the Complainant prays for a direction upon the OP to pay Rs.50,000/- for mental pain and agony and Rs.10,000/- for litigation cost. The Complainant also prays for a direction upon the OP to replace the defective meter.
The OP contested the case by filing written version on 28.01.19, inter alia, denying the allegations made out in the complaint contending that the case is not maintainable. It is the specific case of the OP that the Complainant is a consumer having consumer Id No. 300816471. The meter is a domestic meter but the Complainant used the meter not only for domestic purpose but also to charge the battery of his vehicle (TOTO). At the time of inspection, the OP found some illegal acts of the Complainant and the meter was also defective. So, a new meter was installed on 31.01.18 and the meter reading was found to the 2020 units as on 01.05.18 against the meter No. BB0331552 which was installed with initial reading as 0000. The OP prepared the bill on the basis of actual consumption noted in the new meter and the petitioner filed an application for turning of bracket of LT pole and the allegation for receiving the amount for installation of challenge meter is not true. The existing load is 24 KBA but during inspection it was found that load was 1.75 KBA for charging his battery of his vehicle (TOTO). The Complainant was a defaulter so, after service of notice for disconnection, the meter had been disconnected on 17.08.18. Thereafter, the Complainant committed theft of electricity and an FIR was lodged vide case No. 405 of 2018 under section 135 (1)(A) of the Electricity Act, 2003. So, the case is liable to be rejected.
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
None on behalf of the Complainant is taken part in hearing of argument. On perusal of materials on record, we fine that the Complainant is a consumer as he hired the service of the OP for consideration.
Point No.2
None on behalf of the Complainant is taken part in hearing of argument .
On a careful consideration over the materials on record, we find that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and this Forum has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Both the points are thus disposed of.
Point Nos.3&4
None on behalf of the Complainant has taken part in hearing of argument.
The Ld. Advocate for the OP submits that the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief.
We have gone through the written complaint, written version, evidence of the Complainant and xerox copies of documents filed by the Complainant. Admittedly, the Complainant was a consumer of the electricity under the OP. It is the version of the OP that the new meter was installed on 31.01.18 and the disputed bill was drawn on the basis of meter reading as found in the new meter No. BB0331552 which was installed with initial reading as 0000. It is also stated in the written version of the OP that the electric connection of the Complainant was disconnected on 17.08.18 after service of notice for disconnection as the Complainant was a defaulter and an FIR had been lodged vide case No. 405 of 2018 under section 135 (1)(A) of the Electricity Act, 2003. The Complainant has not denied the said fact in his evidence submitted on 25.03.19. On a careful consideration, we find that the Complainant has failed to establish that the bill dated 14.05.18 amounting Rs.18,073/- for the units consumed as 2020 was incorrect
With due consideration over the materials on record, we find that the O.P. prepared the electricity bill on the basis of new meter installed on 31.01.18 and a case for theft of electricity against the complainant had been filed vide case No.405 of 2018. The complainant has not denied the statement of the O.P. that electricity connection was disconnected on 17.08.18 after service of notice for disconnection as the Complainant was a defaulter. Therefore ,we hold that the complainant has failed to establish any deficiency of service against the O.P. and the complainant is not entitled to get any relief in this case.
Reasons for delay
The Case was filed on 03.08.18 and admitted on 29.08.18 . 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 Consumer case fails.
Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is
Ordered
that the complaint Case No.CC/134/2018 be and the same is hereby dismissed on contest against the OP without cost.
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.
