DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS ,

AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 0144

                C.C. CASE NO. 49   OF _2018

DATE OF FILING : 26.4.2018                  DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT: 28.09.2018

Present                                :   President       :   Ananta Kumar Kapri

                                        Member(s)    :    Subrata Sarker  & Jhunu Prasad                                                                  

COMPLAINANT              : Tapan Mondal, son of late Kamal Chandra Mondal of Vill. Hasanpur, P.O Champahati, P.S Sonarpur,Pin-743330.

- VERSUS  -

O.P/O.Ps                                :  1.  Station Manager, West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. Champahati Electric Supply, P.O Champahati, P.S Baruipur, Kol-144, Dist. S-24pgs.

___________________________________________________________________

                                                            J  U  D  G  M  E  N  T

JHUNU PRASAD, LADY MEMBER

Interference of this Forum has been sought for by the complainant contending gross negligence, deficiency and unfair trade practice in rendering service towards the complainant by the Opposite Parties.

In epitome, the case stated in the complaint, is that, the complainant has a tailoring shop and the complainant is getting electricity from WBSEDCL, Champahati , West Bengal since 2002.

From the year of 2014 the said electric meter became defective and the WBSEDCL sent average bill to the complainant. The complainant paid electric bill Rs.908/- for  the year of 2015, Rs 919/- for the year of 2016 and Rs.175/-for the year of 2017.

Thereafter the WBSEDCL on 22.04.2017 sent one bill of Rs.1273/- to the complainant. The complainant immediately lodged complain before the WBSEDCL. Inspite of that the WBSEDCL sent another three bills dated 15.07.2017 of Rs.1824/-, dated 24.12.2017 of Rs. 2859/- and dated 17.04.2018 of Rs. 6806/- . The complainant on 26.12.2017 informed the matter to the Station Master, WBSEDCL,Champahati and submitted the yellow card and requested to check the meter and rectify the disputed bills.

 Thereafter the WBSEDCL installed a new meter in favour of the complainant without any yellow card and compelled the complainant to pay the electric bill without any meter reading.

The WBSEDCL did not provide the proper service to the complainant.

Hence, the complainant filed this instant case for getting relief as prayed for.

Issued notice upon the Opposite Party.

Ld. Advocate appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party WBSEDCL by way of filing vokalatnama but did not file any written version. So, the case is heard ex-parte against the Opposite Party.  

                                          POINTS FOR DECISION:-

                The point for determination in the instant case is whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the material evidences on record.

                                           Decision with Reasons:-

          In order to prove his allegation set forth in the complaint, the complainant deposed in this case as sole witness by way of affidavit and also produced some documents in support of his case .

The main dispute between the complainant and the Opposite Party is regarding the defective meter. The complainant requested the Opposite Party WBSEDCL to check the meter and to send the proper bill, though the Opposite Party deliberately ignored to do the same and sent the exorbitant bills.

On overall evaluation of the argument advanced by the Advocate of the complainant and on critical appreciation of the  case record, it  is evident that it is the case of the complainant that meter No. 7S0851655N became defective for long time for which the complainant requested the Opposite Party for replacement of the said meter. The complainant further alleged that due to defective meter the Opposite Party sent exorbitant bills and therefore the complainant could not pay the same. The complainant lodged complaint regarding excess billing before the Opposite Party. The complainant also submitted that on the basis of his complaint the Opposite Party replaced the defective meter being present meter beimg No.BB0356586N, but the Opposite Party did not rectify the disputed bills.

After careful consideration of the submission and the documents furnished by the complainant we have no hesitation to hold that it is the positive case in favour of the complainant .

Manifestly, it is found from the record that admittedly the meter being No.7S0851655N has been replaced by the Opposite Party on being complaint of defective meter. But the Opposite Party failed to test and examine the defective meter and issued revised bills on the basis of meter test report.

Such inaction on the part of the Opposite Party is tantamount to gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice  within the per view of section 2(1) (g) and section 2(1)(r) of C.P. Act 1986 and therefore the poor consumer being the complainant should not be suffered for the negligent Act of the Opposite Party.

Moreover, all the allegations made by the complainant never challenged by the Opposite Party , even the Opposite Party appeared by filling vakalatnama but did not contest the case by filling written version. Therefore, there are no reasons to disbelieve the unchallenged testimony of the complainant. 

In light of the above analysis we are of the opinion that the complainant has successfully proved his case and entitled to get relief from the Opposite Party and consequently the points for determination are decided in affirmative.

In short, the complainant deserves success.

In the result, we proceed to pass

                                                    ORDER

That the complaint be and the same is allowed ex-parte against the Opposite Party WBSEDCL with cost of Rs. 5,000/-.

That the Opposite Party is directed to  raise revised bills conformity with the guidelines provided in the judgment and to serve the same upon the complainant and the complainant is also directed to pay the the revised bills duly issued by the Opposite Party within a period of 30 days from the date of it’s receipt. At the same time, it is made clear that the Opposite Party will be able to disconnect the line of the complainant only when the complainant does not pay for the properly raised bills as aforesaid.

That the complainant is also directed to pay the revised bills duly issued by the Opposite Party within a period of 30 days from the date of it’s receipt.

That the opposite Party is also directed pay Rs. 5000/- as litigation within a period of 30 days from the date of this order.

Besides , the complainant shall be at liberty to take recourse of execution of this order U/S 25/27 of C.P. Act, 1986.

Let copy of this order be supplied to the party/parties free of cost when applied for.

          Member                      Member                                                    President

Dictated and corrected by me

                                    Member