West Bengal

Howrah

CC/16/28

SABIR ALI MOLLAH - Complainant(s)

Versus

Station Manager, WBSEDCL - Opp.Party(s)

26 Aug 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM HOWRAH
20, Round Tank Lane, Howrah 711 101.
Office (033) 2638 0892, Confonet (033) 2638 0512 Fax (033) 2638 0892
 
Complaint Case No. CC/16/28
 
1. SABIR ALI MOLLAH
S/O Sajahan Mollah, Vill Kohlia, P.O. Nabagram Shikepur, P.S. Shyampur, Dist Howrah
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Station Manager, WBSEDCL
Garchumuk Customer Care Centre, Vill Ulughata (58 Get) P.O. Khurigachi P.S.Shyampur, Howrah 711 315
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Shri Bhim Das Nanda PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. Smt. Jhumki Saha MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. Asim Kumar Phatak MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
Dated : 26 Aug 2016
Final Order / Judgement

           Date of filing      : 27.01.2016

            Date of S/R         : 28.03.2016

            Date of Order     : 26.08.2016

Sabir Ali Molla,

s/o,  Sajahan  Molla,

Vill-Kolia,

P.O.-Nabagram Sikipur, P.S-Shyampur,

Dist.-Howrah, ………………………………………………………………Complainant

                                                            Vs.

The Station Engineer,

Garhchumuk C.C.C,WBSEDCL,

Vill- Ulughata(58 gate),P.O Khurigachi

P.S Shyampur,

District- Howrah,

PIN-711315……………….………………………………………………….Opposite party.

P    R    E     S    E    N     T

Hon’ble President  :   Shri  B. D.  Nanda,  M.A. ( double ), L.L.M., WBHJS.

lady Member      :      Smt. Jhumki Saha.

Hon’ble Member :       Shri A.K. Pathak.

FINAL    ORDER

      This is an application U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, filed by the Petitioner, Sabir Ali Molla,  against  the  O.P.,  WBSEDCLtd,  praying for direction upon them  for  revision of bill for the period 03/2015 to 05/2015 and to replace the old meter by a new one  alongwith other orders as the Forum may deem fit and proper.

            The case of the petitioner is that he  is enjoying the domestic electric line since 10 years and he has paid all the bills regularly. But O.P. sent  a bill for the period of 03/2015 to 05/2015 mentioning the units consumed as 480 which , according to the complainant is very much exorbitant. So, he wrote a letter to O.P. for inspection. On 06/05/2015, O.P. installed a check meter at his premises. After 9 days they removed the check meter.  On inspection it was found that during those 9 days, in old meter per day unit consumption was 1.66 while check meter showed a reading of 1.44unit per day.  Accordingly, it is the claim of the complainant that as per check meter total unit consumption was 132.48 units for the period of 03/2015 to 05/2015 for three months when O.P.sent a bill for 480 units for that period. So, he again went to the office of O.P. and requested them to revise the said bill but O.P.remained silent causing mental agony and harassment to the complainant. Rather O.P. sent one demand notice dt. 22/06/2015 asking him to pay the said bill otherwise they would disconnect the line. Even O.P.is not accepting the bill for the period 06/2015 to 08/2015. So, being frustrated and finding no other alternative, the petitioner filed this case with the aforesaid prayers.

Notice was served upon the O.P.  The  o.p. appeared  and filed w/v. Accordingly, the case was heard on contest against O.P.

On the above cases of the parties the following issues are framed :

  1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.s ?
  2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?

Decision with reason :

            The O.P. contested the case by filing a written version stating therein that as per the prayer of the complainant, O.P. after receiving the appeal fee from the complainant, installed a Master meter  in series at the premises of the complainant on 06/05/2015. And as per the series meter report  dt 14/05/2015, the existing meter was working properly . And that was informed to the complainant vide letter dt. 02/07/2015. Thereafter again on 22/06/2015, complainant raised the same issue which was also replied by O.P. vide their letter dt. 29/09/2015. Moreover, during the period of 02/05/2013 to 26/08/2013, the meter consumption was 616 units and during 28/05/2014 to 27/08/2014 , meter consumption was 484 units in the complainant’s meter. Accordingly, it is proved that his meter was working properly and there is no abnormal meter reading done by the O.P..  We have also considered that complainant himself has stated that the existing meter and the series meter took almost same reading with a very negligible difference. So, it is clear to us that for the concerned period i.e 03/2015 to 05/2015, the meter reading can be 480 units as the existing meter was performing correctly . And we do not find any deficiency on the part of the O.P.

In view of above discussion and findings the case fails on contest for lack of merit.

            Court fees paid is correct.

Hence,

                                                O r d e r e d

That the CC 28/2016 be and the same is dismissed on  contest against the O.P. without any cost and compensation

Supply the copy of the order to the parties free of cost. 

Dictated and corrected

by me.

 

     ( Jhumki Saha )

Member , C.D.R.F. Howrah.

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Shri Bhim Das Nanda]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Smt. Jhumki Saha]
MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MR. Asim Kumar Phatak]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.