C.F. CASE No.          : CC/09/09                                                                                                         

 

COMPLAINANT             :  Suresh Chandra Das

Vill. 290, K.B.M., 

P.O. + P.S. Chakdaha,

Dist. Nadia, Pin 741222.

 

 

       –  Vs  – 

 

 

OPPOSITE PARTY              : Station Manager,

West Bengal State Electricity 

Distribution Co. Ltd.

Chakdaha East Group Electricity,

Chowrasta, Chakdaha, Nadia.

 

 

PRESENT              :  SHRI DILIP KUMAR BASU                     PRESIDENT

             :  SMT SHIBANI BHATTACHARYA          MEMBER  

 

DATE OF DELIVERY             

OF  JUDGMENT               :    28th April, 2009.

 

 

:    J U D G M E N T    :

 

The fact of the complainant's case, in a nutshell, is as follows. 

The complainant, Suresh Chandra Das has filed the instant case against the Station Manager, West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd., Chakdaha East Group Electricity Supply, Chakdaha alleging that he is a consumer of electricity vide No. B 305137.   The electric bill for the month of September, October and 

2

November received by him transpires that consumption of electricity was noted in the yellow card as 3574 unit and the charge fixed was Rs. 648/- which was paid by the complainant on 18.09.2008.   Thereafter, the employee of the said office noted the consumption of electricity in his yellow card on 15.11.08 as 03796 but the bill was sent to him showing the consumption of 3976 and charged Rs. 1180/-.   As the consumption reading 3976 was erroneous as per noting in the yellow card, he went to the office and requested to correct the bill, but they did not pay heed of that.   To the contrary, they disconnected the electric line on 12.02.09.   He is a poor rickshaw-van-puller, his son is a candidate of a Madhyamik Examination which would commence from 25.02.09.  Due to disconnection of electric line they are the immense sufferers.  By filing the instant case he has prayed for a direction for reconnection of the electric line early, compensation of Rs. 20,000/- for his harassment, mental agony and for the sufferance of his son for preparation of his examination due to disconnection of electric line, Rs. 15,000/- as cost of this case and other relief.

The OP has contested this case by filing a written version whereon he has denied the material averments of the complaint contending, inter alia, that the electric line was not disconnected at his residence and admitting him as a consumer has stated that the electric bill for the period from 12/08 to 02/09 due to wrong meter reading pointing, i.e., 3976 instead of 3796 occurred due to mistake in the computer section.   The OP thereafter, issued a fresh rectification bill by correcting the said mistake to the complainant.  The complainant is still enjoying the electricity from the said service connection and the case is filed falsely and is liable to be dismissed.

In view of the above facts the following points can be taken into account for proper adjudication.

Point No.1    Whether the OP has caused any deficiency in service as alleged?

Point No.2    Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation as prayed for?

 

3

FINDING WITH REASONS

 

Both the points are taken together for sake of convenience and for the purpose of avoiding needless repetitions. 

The xerox copy of the yellow card filed by the complainant reflects that on 12.08.08 the meter reading was 03574, on 05.11.08 the meter reading was 03796, on 04.02.09 the meter reading was 03917.   

The xerox copy of the electric bill of Suresh Chandra Das, the complainant for consumption period Sep – 2008, Nov – 08, reflects that the previous meter reading was 3574 and present meter reading was 3976, advanced units 402.   The posting in the yellow card reflects the meter reading 03574 and next meter reading 03796.  Obviously, the OP has committed an error in posting the total consumption of the electricity of the complainant and which has been admitted by the OP by saying that mistake was committed in computer section of that office.  

It is fact that bonafide mistake may take place at any time, but that should be corrected accordingly.   The xerox copy of the letter of the complainant dtd. 19.12.08 reflects that he pointed out the error in showing the electricity bill and prayed for rectification of the same.   The OP or the staff of his office did not pay heed of that.   To the contrary, on 12.02.09 according to the complaint, the OP disconnected the said line instead of earnest request for not to disconnect the line as his son was the candidate of the Madhyamik Examination which would commence from 25.02.09.   They did not even to care to verify his written complain as to erroneous meter reading cited in the electric bill.  This type of happening obviously cannot be treated as a bona fide mistake.  On the other hand, the same can be treated the deficiency in service.   Due to ego of the OP or his staff the complainant had to suffer immensely and his son who was a candidate of Madhyamik Examination had to face immense difficulties to get ready for his ensuing examination.   

4

This type of ego / behavior for the monopoly business should be stopped.   It is the time to consider whether the OP or the authority will fix up the responsibility for commission of this type of deficiency in service taking the advantage to the monopoly business.  The pin point responsibility of the concerned staff or the officer should find out and the image from the mind of the staff / officer should be removed that the concerned Co. will pay the compensation  and that will not be paid by him from his own pocket.   

We are saying all these if the concerned authority / Staff / Officer should take care at the time of pointing out the error caused by them, then the harassment suffered by the complainant may be avoided.   The letter dtd. 19.12.08 written by the complainant clearly divulges that he pointed out the error to the concerned office.   Without correcting the same, they disconnected the electric line.  

The Ld. Lawyer of the OP has argued that the line was not disconnected.   And the consumer has yet been enjoying the electricity without depositing the disconnection fee.

The complainant himself has argued that his electric line was disconnected on 12.02.09 and reconnected on 26.02.09.  He has admitted that he did not deposit the reconnection charge.

This case was filed on 16.02.09 fixing 27.02.09 for S/R, appearance, and filing written version.   From the averment of the complainant an inference can easily be drawn that after receiving the notice of this case the OP has reconnected the electric line.  The complainant has also prayed for an order for reconnection of his electric line.   Without disconnection of the same this prayer, a direction for reconnection of electric line cannot be embodied in the complaint.  Thus, we find much substance in the submission of the complainant that his electric line was disconnected.   

 

5

In view of the above facts we have already stated that there caused deficiency in service by the OP.   

The complainant has filed the xerox copy of documents showing that he is a rickshaw-van-puller.  The xerox copy of the registration certificate of West Bengal Board of Secondary Education manifests that Pradip Das, S/o Suresh Chandra Das was a student of class IX which was issued on 15th September, 2008.

In view of the above facts we are of opinion that the complainant has successfully substantiated his case.

Considering, the facts and circumstances of this case, the ruling 2007 CTJ (March) 240 (CP) (NCDRC) at page 243, Para 22, Bihar State Sugar Corporation Ltd. vs. State Bank of India & other where the ruling of the Apex Court passed in Lacnow Development Authority vs.  M.K. Gupta, 1993 CTJ 929 be fittings in the instant case which states as follows “Harassment of a common man by public authorities is socially abhorring and legally impermissible.   It may harm him personally but the injury to society is far more grievous.   Crime and corruption thrive and prosper in the society due to lack of public resistance.   Nothing is more damaging than the feeling of helplessness.   An ordinary citizen instead of complaining and fighting succumbs to the pressure of undesirable functioning in offices instead of standing against it.  Therefore, the award of compensation for harassment by public authorities not only compensates the individual, satisfies him personally but helps in curing social evil.   It may result in improving the work culture and help in changing the outlook.”

Taking the above view of the Hon'ble Apex Court, our considered view is that the harassment and agony caused to and suffered by the complainant and also the sufferance of his son who was an examinee of Madhyamik Examination, an award of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only as compensation may mitigate their grievance.  

6

The case thus succeeds.

Hence,

Ordered,

That the case is allowed on contest with cost of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only.

As the said electric line of the complainant has already been reconnected we pass no order about that.

The OP is directed to pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as cost, in all Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) only to the complainant within 45 days from the date of this order failing which the amount shall accrue interest @ 10% per annum from this day.

Hand over a copy of this order to the parties free of cost.

The case is disposed of by  2 months 1 day.

 

 

Dictated & corrected by me.

 

 

  (D.K. Basu)

    President         

C.D.R.F., Nadia

        (S. Bhattacharya)           (D.K. Basu)

Member             President            

           C.D.R.F., Nadia      C.D.R.F., Nadia