IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No.CC/175/2016.
Date of Filing: 06.12.2016. Date of Final Order:14.06.2018.
Complainant: Sri Ajit Mondal, S/O Late Radhanath Mondal, Sundar Colony,
P.O. Banjetia, P. S. Berhampore, Dist. Murshidabad,
Pin -742102.
-Vs-
Opposite Party: Station Manager, WBSEDCL, Khagra CCC, Netaji Road,
P.O. Khagra, P.S. Berhampore, Dist. Murshidabad. Pin 742103.
Agent/Advocate for the Complainant : Sri Saugata Biswas,
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party : Sri Siddhartha Sankar Dhar.
Present: Sri Asish Kumar Senapati…………………. President.
Smt. Chandrima Chakraborty ……………………..Member.
FINAL ORDER
Sri Asish Kumar Senapath President.
This is a case U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
One Sri Ajit Mondal (herein after referred to as the complainant) files the case against the Station Manager, WBSEDCL, Khagra CCC (herein after referred to as the OP) alleging deficiency in service.
The complaint may be summarized as follows:-
The complainant is a consumer of the OP vide Consumer I.D. No. 312272564 since long and he has been paying electric bills regularly. That all on a sudden the complainant received a bill of Rs.12,382/- for the months May, June and July, 2016. The complainant received a bill indicating previous reading as 3058 units and present reading as 4618 units ie. Consumption unit was 1560 units during the period which was uncertain for the domestic consumption. The OP did not go to the home of the complainant to check the meter and the disputed bill had no basis. The complainant requested the OP to verify the correctness of the bill but of no result. The OP has deficiency in service. The complainant prayed for compensation of Rs.5,000/- and a sum of 5,000/- for cost and harassment.
The OP put his appearance and filed written version on 02.03.2017 and amended W/V on 18.4.18. According to the version of the OP, the bill for the months of May, June and July, 2015 was 000 units, the bill for the months of August to October, 2015 was 363 units, the bill for the months of November 2015 to January 2016 was for 91 units, February to April, 2017 it was for 27units. The specific case of the OP is that the OP inspected the house of the petitioner and found that the petitioner had five pieces of Fans, one CTV , one Fridge, two CFL, 100 wtt.bulb-3 nos., Tube -3 nos., one LED, one table Fan, one Ruti Maker, one Mixy machine, one water lifting pump and assed consumption of 1800 units for one year. It is the version of the OP that the OP claimed bill for 1560 units for the months May, June and July, 2015 after adjusting the previous paid units and the meter was disconnected as the complainant failed to pay the said amount. The OP has no deficiency in service. The OP prays for dismissal of the complaint.
On the basis of the complaint and the written version, the following points are framed for the proper adjudication of the case:
Points for Decision.
- Is the complainant a consumer under the C. P. Act, 1986 ?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?
- Has the OP deficiency in service, as alleged?
- Is the complainant entitled to get relief/reliefs as prayed for?
Decision with Reasons.
Point No.1.
The Ld. Agent for the complainant submits that the complainant is a consumer of the OP.
In reply the Ld. Advocate for the OP submits nothings on this point.
On careful consideration of materials on record, we find that the complainant is a consumer in terms of provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Point No. 2.
Ld. Agent for the complainant submits that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and the claim amount is within the pecuniary limits of the District Forum.
Ld. Agent for the OP has said nothing on this point.
On a careful perusal of the materials on record, we find that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. We also find that this Forum has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
Both the points are disposed of in favour of the complainant.
Point Nos.3& 4.
The Ld. Agent for the complainant submits that the complainant is a consumer of the OP and the bill for the months from May to July, 2016 claiming Rs.12,382/- was excessive and without any basis. It is argued that the OP alleged that he assessed consumption of 450 units per quarter and charged the amount after adjusting the paid bills but the OP did not give slab benefits to the complainant. Hehas argued that the OP disconnected the supply of electricity illegally without giving any slab benefits at the time of preparation of the average bill and electric line was restored in terms of order No.5 dt.30.10.17 of this Forum on deposition of Rs.3,000/-.
He further argued that the OP has deficiency in service. He prays for passing compensation and cost of litigation.
In reply, the Ld. Advocate for the OP submits that the OP has no deficiency in service and the bill for the period from August, 2015 to July, 2016 was prepared on average basis after deducting the amount already paid by the complainant during that period. It is argued that the service connection was restored on the strength of an Interim Order dt. 30.01.17 passed by this Forum.
Admittedly, the complainant is a consumer of the OP. It appears from the Annexure 1 that the bill amount was for Rs.12,382/- . It also appears from the Annexure 2 filed by the complainant that meter reading was Nil (F.cut) as recorded on 07.11.14 and 30.01.15 and the complainant informed the fact to the Station Manager, Berhampore CCC, on 20.10.16 but it is not understood why the complainant did not inform the fact in writing to the OP just after knowing the fact that his meter was not moving. The OP assessed yearly consummation as 1800 units. There is no machinery of this Forum to ascertain whether the yearly average 1800 units as assessed by the OP was correct or not. But it is apparently clear that the OP has not given slab benefits for consumption of 1800 units during the period from August 2015 to July, 2016. Without giving any slab benefit, the OP disconnected the electricity connection of the Complainant for non-payment of the bills. In our considered view the OP has deficiency in service as he had prepared the bill for the months May, 2015 to July, 2016 without giving slab benefits. According to the version of the OP the consumption of 1800 units was for the period from August, 2015 to July, 2016 . But there is no reflection in the bill dt. 13.08.16 (Annexure-1) that the OP gave slab benefits to the complainant. It is the version of the complainant that the complainant has deposited Rs.3000/- for restoration of his electricity in terms of Order No.5 dt. 30.1.2017. It is duty of the OP to check the meter periodically and to do needful including the inspection of the meter and act accordingly so that the electricity charges may be realized properly in time but in the present case the OP was silent for a considerable period and ultimately inspected the premises of the complainant and assessed average consumed units for one year and sent bill to the complainant but without giving any slab benefit.
We think that the complainant should be compensated amounting to Rs.2, 000/- for deficiency in service and Rs.1,000/- for litigation cost.
Reasons for Delay:
The case was filed on 06.12.16 and admitted on 14.12.17. The OP put his appearance and filed W/V on 02.03.2017. This Forum tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of 13(3A). The day to day order will also speak for the cause of delay.
Fees paid are correct.
Hence, it is
Ordered
that the Consumer Complaint No. 175/2016 be and the same is hereby allowed on contest against the OP with litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-.
The OP is directed to prepare a fresh bill for the period from August, 2015 to July, 2016 afresh showing consumption of 1800 units, as per their assessment, by giving slab benefits dividing the total consumption into twelve months without imposing LPSC by 30 days from the date of this order.
The OP is also directed to prepare the aforesaid bill by adjusting the amount already paid by the complainant during that period including the payment of Rs.3000/-,if paid by the complainant, in terms of the Interim Order No. 5 dt. 30.01.17 by giving 15 days time to the complainant for making payment.
The OP is also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- for deficiency in service and Rs. 1,000/- to the Complainant by 45 days from the date of this other.
Both the parties are directed to comply the order as mentioned above.
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
