IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC/08/2021
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
10.02.2021 06.09.2021 13.12.2022
Complainant: Subrata Mukherjee,
S/O- Late Sastidas Mukherjee,
Vill- Jamuar, P.O.- Jamuar,
P.S.- Raghunathganj, Pin-742235
-Vs-
Opposite Party: Station Manager,
Raghunathganj Group Electric Supply,
P.O.- Raghunathganj,
Dist- Murshidabad,
Pin No. 742225
Agent/Advocate for the Complainant : Self
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Parties : S.S. Dhar
.
Present: Sri Ajay Kumar Das…………………………..........President.
Sri. Subir Sinha Roy………………………………….Member.
Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………..Member.
FINAL ORDER
SMT. ALOKA BANDYOPADHYAY, MEMBER.
This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.
One Subrata Mukherjee (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against S.M. Raghunathganj C.C.C. (here in after referred to as the OP) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.
The sum and substance of the complaint case is as follows:-
The Complainants took the electricity connection from the O.P. for S.T.W. Pumset having consumer I.D. No. 300105877. On 22.10.2019 the complainant found that the said pumpset was not functioning due to want of electricity and the matter was intimated over phone on 23.10.2019 vide Docket No. 26753708. After 2/3 days the representative of the O.P. took away the defective meter and from that day the O.P. has not taken any initiative for connection and due to non-electricity connection complainant suffered loss of paddy amounting more or less Rs. 1 lakh. After a long period O.P. installed a new meter without the knowledge of the complainant and sent the electric bill having reading date 26.11.2019 billing date 03.12.2019 amounting Rs. 2147/-. And the Complainant was forced to pay the said bill amount as the O.P. threatened for disconnection. The Complainant sent lawyer’s notice dated 10.02.2020 for returning Rs. 2147/- as because there was no electric connection in the said billing period but in return the O.P. stated that as per guideline of WBERC the consumption was calculated.
Finding no other alternative the complainants filed the instant case before the District Commission for appropriate relief.
Defence Case
After due service of the notice the O.P. appeared before this Commission and filed Written Version contending inter alia that one LT Mobile Van visited the premises to restore the power supply to the meter but due to cultivation in paddy filed the technical team could not reached to the Transformer on that day. But ultimately restored the power supply on 29.10.2019. And after that day there was no further docket registered by the consumer, so there is no deficiency of service on the part of the O.P. and the case is liable to be dismissed.
On the basis of the complaint and the documents filed by the complainant the following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case:
Points for decision
1. Is the Complainant a consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?
2. Has the OP any deficiency in service, as alleged?
3. Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?
Decision with Reasons:
Point no.1, 2 & 3
All the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity of discussion.
Undoubtedly, the Complainant is a consumer as he had taken electric connection having Consumer I.D. No. 300105877 under Raghunathganj Group Electric Supply for S.T.W. Pumpset for cultivation of his land. On 22.10.2019 the Complainant noticed that due to want of electricity connection the Pumpset is not functioning. On 23.10.2019 the Complainant filed complaint to the O.P. through mobile phone whose docket number is 26753708. As per the petition of complaint the O.P. without informing the Complainant installed a new meter and sent a bill on 03.12.2019 having current reading date 26.11.2019 claiming an amount of Rs. 2147.00/- and the Complainant paid the same.
The O.P. admitted that the Complainant has lodged a docket before the O.P. on 23.10.2019 at around 10:28:58 hrs against consumer ID No. 300105877 regarding no power supply of meter no SX020686. Accordingly the LT mobile Van visited the premises to restore the power supply to the meter but due to cultivation in paddy filed the technical team could not reach to the Transformer on that day. However, the restoration of power supply was completed on 29.10.2019 and the docket was closed on the same day at 12:23:53 hrs and the LT mobile van team detected that H.T fuse on the transformer was cutout which was restored accordingly though the docket was not related to defectiveness of Meter no SX020686. During next meter reading on 26.11.2019 the meter was found defective by the meter reader and the bill was generated according to the guideline of W.B.E.R.C and the defective meter was replaced by the new meter vide No. XY034745 as on 28.11.2019 as urgent basis. As per Written Version of the O.P. there was no power interruption occurred at the Customer Premises and after 29.10.2019 there was no further Docket registered by the Customer regarding power interruption of meter dispute.
The Complainant sent lawyer’s notice to the O.P. dated 10.02.2020 stating that due to long disconnection of the electricity from 22.10.2019 the Complainant suffered a huge amount of loss of his paddy. In spite of that the O.P. claimed Rs. 2147.00/- for electricity connection through a bill dated 03.12.2019 and current reading date 26.11.2019.
In reply the WBSEDCL stated that “ with reference to your application dated 11.02.2020, it is to inform you that one bill of your client against the above mentioned consumer ID was generated as on 26.11.2019 on estimated basis due to defectiveness of the meter (SX020686) according to the guideline of WBERC under Regulation no. 55 sub para 3.8.1(b) which was published in the Kolkata Gazette dated 7th August, 2013. After that without any delay the undersigned had taken action immediately to change the old defective meter with a new meter no. YX034745 and replacement process was completed on 28.11.2019.”
Point to be noted that the guideline of the WBERC has not been challenged by the Complainant at the time of the argument.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the documents filed before us and argument advanced by both the parties we find that the O.P. closed the complaint of the Complainant on 29th Oct, 2019 at 12:23:53 and there was no document to show the assessment of loss particularly we find that there is no report of surveyor/ assessor regarding the loss of the Complainant. So, we are of the view that the O.P has acted as per rule and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. and the Complainant has failed to prove his case and as such the case is liable to be dismissed.
Reasons for delay
The Case was filed on 10.02.2021 and admitted on 06.09.2021. This Commission 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 is dismissed.
Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is
Ordered
that the complaint Case No. CC/08/2021 be and same is dismissed against the O.P. but without any order as to costs.
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.
Member
Member Member President.
