IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC/42/2018.
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
13.03.18 16.05.18 01.03.19
Complainant: Mohaimenul Sk
S/O- Md. Dukhu Sk,
Vill- Chargachi,
PO- Diara,
PS- Sagardighi,
Pin- 742122
-Vs-
Opposite Party: Station Manager,
WBSEDCL, Sagardighi CCC
PO & PS- Sagardighi,
Pin- 742226
Agent/Advocate for the Complainant : Sri. Sumanta Roy.
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 Mohaimenul Sk. (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against Station Manager, WBSEDCL, Sagardighi CCC (here in after referred to as the OP) praying for necessary direction to raise fresh bill for the month of January, 2018 after cancellation of the bill, alleging deficiency in service.
Contd …2
The sum and substance of the complaint case is as follows
The Complainant is a cultivator who obtained an electric connection from the OP being consumer No. 301744065 for irrigation of his land. The complainant has been using electricity for the purpose of irrigation on payment of energy charges against the bills raised by the OP and the average consumption varies from 452.500 units per month during dry season and 200-205 units in rainy season. The Complainant paid energy charges of a sum of Rs.13,793/- for the month of Dec, 2017 while no outstanding amount of energy charges was due. Thereafter, the Complainant found the meter was not working and informed the OP by toll free Number which was also registered. Subsequently, the Complainant with his utter surprise received a bill for the month of January, 2018 for a sum of Rs.79,872.20/- for a single month. The Complainant never consumed 19882 units for the billing period from 06.11.17-28.11.17. Ultimately, the Complainant met the OP and requested him to correct the bill but the OP refused to correct the bill and insisted the Complainant to pay the bill with a threat of disconnection in case of non-payment of the bill.
Hence, the Complainant filed the case praying for a direction upon the OP to raise fresh bill according to actual consumption for the month of January by cancelling the disputed bill. It is prayed that the raising of the disputed bill in excessive manner is nothing but deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
The OP did not contest the case in spite of service of notice.
On the basis of the above complaint 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?
Contd 3
Point no.1
The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the Complainant is a consumer as he hired the services of the OP for consideration.
We have gone through the written complaint and xerox copies of the documents filed by the Complainant. We find that the Complainant has electric connection being consumer No. 301744065. Therefore, we hold that the Complainant is a consumer in terms of section 2( I)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act,1986.
Point No.2
The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and the claimed amount is also within pecuniary limit of the District Forum.
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
The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the electric bill for the month of Jan, 2018 amounting Rs.79,872/- is baseless, vague and arbitrary. It is urged that the consumption units of 19882 as noted in the said bill dated 19.02.18 is baseless and there is no bearing with the other bills up to Dec,2017. He further argues that the Complainant lodged a complaint for non working of the meter before receiving the bill for the month of January 2018. He prays for passing necessary order directing the O.P. to draw the bill for the month of January,2018 after cancellation of the bill for the month of January, 2018.
We have gone through the materials on record. The Complainant is a consumer of electricity and the bill for the month of January, 2018 reveals that consumption units during the period from 06.11.17 to 28.11.17 was 19882 units. The Complainant alleged that his meter was not working and he lodged complaint in Toll Free number but no document has been filed or the date of lodging complaint is mentioned in
Contd …..4
anywhere in the Complaint.The Complainant has not even filed any document to show that his meter was defective on the date of the meter reading of the bill dated 19.02.18. Now the question is whether the units consumed as noted in the bill for the month of 2018 are justified or not?
There is no machinery with us to ascertain whether the units consumed as noted in the bill is correct or not.
In this respect, we have placed our reliance on the decision passed by the Hon’ble State Commission in FA No. 1087/2017 dated 01.06.18 where in it is held that there is no machinery before this Forum constituted under this Act to ascertain as to whether the meter in question is defective or not? Such a dispute cannot be adjudicated basing upon oral and documentary evidence without evidence of an expert in the field. In the prayer clause of the petition of the complaint, Respondent did not make in prayer for appointment of any technical person to ascertain the correctness of the meter in question. There is no evidence what so ever to indicate that the Respondent has any ‘hostile animus’ or animosity with any employee/staff of WBSEDCL for which an inflated bill has been raised. Therefore, in order to contradict the assessment of licensing authority, the Respondent should have invoked clause 3.5 of notification No.55 of West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission published in Kolkata Gazette (extra ordinary) dated 07.08.13 by lodging a complaint before the appropriate authority.
With due regard to the above decision we do not think it wise to say that the units consumed as noted in the bill for the month of January, 2018 is excessive or arbitrary.
Therefore, we are not in a possession to hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP for raising the bill for the month of January 2018. The Complainant may lodge his grievance before the Grievance Redressal Officer or the Central Grievance Redressal Officer or the Ombudsman as the case may be for proper redressal. We think that the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief in this case.
Reasons for delay
The Case was filed on 13.03.18 and admitted on 16.05.18. This Forum tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision
Contd ….5
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/42/2018 be and the same is hereby dismissed exparte 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.
