C.F. CASE No. : CC/10/95
COMPLAINANT : Ali Ahmed Shaikh,
S/o Late Awaled Ali Shaikh
P.O. & Vill. Akandabaria,
Dist. Nadia
OPPOSITE PARTIES/OPs : 1) Station Manager,
Matiary Group Electric Supply
WBSEDCL
P.O. & Vill. Matiary,
P.S. Kaliganj, Dist. Nadia
2) Divisional Manager,
WBSEDCL
Tehatta (D) Division
P.O. & P.S. Tehatta,
Dist. Nadia
PRESENT : SHRI KANAILAL CHAKRABORTY PRESIDENT
: SMT SHIBANI BHATTACHARYA MEMBER
: SHRI SHYAMLAL SUKUL MEMBER
DATE OF DELIVERY
OF JUDGMENT : 2nd February, 2011
: J U D G M E N T :
In brief, the case of the complainant is that he is a consumer of electricity under the OPs with regard to meter No.RSX 19851 which was originally allotted in the name of his father for shallow pump with consumer No. S034813 in August, 08. It is his further case that the OP wrongly fitted his meter with the shallow pump of one Abdul Rashid Shaikh whose consumer No. is S012889 and his meter No. RSX 19828 was wrongly installed with the shallow pump of this complainant as the location of both the shallow pumps is situated in the same area and side by side. Due to wrong installation of meter bill huge amount was raised at that meter which he failed to pay, as a result of which the electricity connection was disconnected on 03.11.09. Subsequently wrong installation of meter was detected by the OP men and accordingly the meters were changed and fitted with the respective shallow pump by an order of the OP dtd. 12.04.10. The disconnection period of the complainant’s meter was from 03.11.09 to 30.04.10 for about 5 months. The complainant all along paid the bill amount raised by the OP with regard to meter No. and consumer No. of his own meter for the period from 05.01.09 to 26.04.10 though the said meter was installed at the shallow pump of Abdul Rashid Shaikh. On the other hand, during that period he consumed the electricity raised in the another meter being No. RSX 19828 which was a less amount. So he time and again requested the OP to correct all the previous bills and to refund the excess amount paid by him, but to no effect. So having no other alternative he has filed this case praying for the reliefs as stated in the petition of complaint.
The OP has contested this case by filing a written version, inter alia, stating that at the time of installation of the meters due to inadvertence the employees of M/S Secure Co. Ltd. installed the complainant’s meter with the pump machine of another person and his meter was installed with the pump machine of the complainant. In April, 10 the fault was detected by the OP men and immediately it was rectified by installation the complainant’s meter along with his pump machine and vise versa. Accordingly since then the bills are prepared in the name of the complainant with regard to electricity consumed by him. But he did not pay all the bills due to which his electricity line was disconnected. This OP has also submitted that an excess amount of Rs. 21,487/- for the period from November, 09 to May, 10 would be adjusted in favour of the complainant and the complainant would have to pay an amount of Rs.5,771/- along with the bills standing in the name of the Abdul Rashid Shaikh as he consumed electricity according to the meter reading of the meter standing in his name.
POINTS FOR DECISION
Point No.1: Has the complainant any cause of action to file this case?
Point No.2: Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Both the points are taken up together for discussion as they are interrelated and for the sake of convenience.
On a careful perusal of the petition of the complaint and the written version filed by the OP along with annexed documents filed by the parties and also after hearing the arguments advanced by the ld. lawyers for the parties it is available on record that admittedly, this complainant is a consumer under the OP with regard to his meter No. RSX 19851 and connection No. S034813. It is also admitted case of the OP that at the time of installation of the meter the complainant’s meter was installed with the shallow pump machine of one Rashid Shaikh and Rashid Shaikh’s meter was installed along with the pump machine of the complainant. It is also submitted in the written version by the OP that the defect was detected in April, 10 when the meters were changed and were replaced at the proper place. So after hearing this, we find that upto April, 10 the complainant had to pay bills according to his own meter though at that time he consumed electricity as per the readings of the mater belonging to Rashid Shaikh. Ld. lawyer for the OP has frankly admitted that the complainant paid Rs. 21,246/- upto 05.10.10 against the bill raised with regard to his own meter which was actually used by Rashid Shaikh. After change of meter and replacement of the complainant’s original meter to his pump in April, 10 the complainant has been enjoying electricity on the basis of the reading of that meter but from the bills filed by the complainant, we find that he did not make payment of those bills and total due amount is Rs. 10442/-. Ld. lawyer for the complainant submits that the complainant is ready to pay this amount. So the complainant’s actual excess amount paid by him stands at Rs. (21246 – 10422) = Rs. 10824/-. Ld. lawyer for the OP has also endorsed this at the time of argument that the above said amount of Rs.10824/- is paid as excess amount by the complainant due to wrong installation of the meters which the OP is ready to adjust with the future bills of the complainant. OPs can realize this amount of Rs. 10824/- from Rashid Shaikh who actually consumed electricity for that amount.
In view of the above discussions, and after hearing the arguments advanced by the ld. lawyers on both sides it is available to us that the complainant has paid an excess amount of Rs. 10824/- towards the bills raised against his meter, but actually he did not consume electricity with regard to his own meter. Practically there is no fault on the part of this complainant though his line is still disconnected. Considering this we find gross deficiency in service on the part of the OP undoubtedly. So our considered view is that the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for. In result the case succeeds.
Hence,
Ordered,
That the case, CC/10/95 be and the same is allowed on contest against the OPs. The complainant is entitled to get a decree for Rs. 10,824/- plus Rs. 4,000/- for harassment caused to him along with Rs. 1,000/- as litigation cost. The OPs are directed to adjust the decretal amount of Rs. 10,824/- with the future bills of the complainant for the month of January–11 onwards after restoration of electric connection with regard to meter standing in the name of the complainant being No. RSX 19851 and the consumer No. S034813. He is further directed to restore the connection within a period of 15 days after passing of this judgment and also to make payment of the other decretal amount of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant within a period of one month since this date, in default, the decretal amount will carry interest @10% per annum since this date till the date of realization of the full amount.
Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.
