In the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Murshidabad
Berhampore, Murshidabad.
Case No. CC/140 /2016
Date of filing: 19/09/2016 Date of Final Order: 17/01/2016
Mujkura Bibi.
W/O- Md. Wahab Ali.
Vill.-Nimgram. P.O.- Nimgram Beluri.
P.S.- Nabagram. Dist- Murshidabad,
- Vs-
The Station Superintendant,
W.B.S.E.D.C.L, Nabagram Customer Care Centre,
P.O.& P.S.- Nabagram.. Dist.- Murshidabad.
PIN-742226.(W.B.)…………………………………………….. Opposite Party.
Mr.Swapan Kumar Mukherjee. Ld. Adv.…………….………………………. for the complainant
Mr.Siddhartha Sankar Dhar Ld. Advocate…………………………………….for the Opposite Party
Before: Hon’ble President, Anupam Bhattacharyya.
Hon’ble Member, Samaresh Kumar Mitra.
Hon’ble Member, Pranati Ali.
FINAL ORDER
Samaresh Kumar Mitra, Member.
This case has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying for an order directing the OP to adjust the cost of replaced new transformer installed with the outstanding bill amount and to check up the existing meter and after that the outstanding bill may be raised.
The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he is a bona fide consumer under the OP being a consumer I.D. No. 313303037 and the electricity is being used for agricultural purposes. The transformer of the said Mini Deep was stolen and the complainant informed the said matter to the S.S. Nabagram, Murshidabad but no steps taken for which the complainant suffered great loss for agricultural production. The complainant informed the OP that the transformer was stolen on 21.05.2014, the OP verbally suggested this complainant to install a new one transformer. The complainant purchased a new transformer costing Rs.34000/- and installed on 15.02.2015. The complainant informed the OP regarding the installation of new transformer and the meter may be defective so checking is required for generation of bill. He also expected that outstanding bill may be raised after deducting the cost of the newly installed transformer but the OP did not adjust the amount of price of the transformer. So getting no alternative the complainant filed the instant complaint for getting relief as prayed in the prayer portion of the complaint.
The sole OP appeared by filing w/v denying the allegation as leveled against him and averred that the complainant never informed this OP about the theft of the transformer and the OP never asked the petitioner to purchase a new transformer. The OP checked the meter by their technical staffs and found that it was in order so there is no question of regenerate the energy bill. The answering OP further assailed that when the petitioner requested the OP to adjust the cost of the transformer through energy bills then on 23-11-2016 the OP by a letter requested the petitioner to submit some documents to consider the claim of the petitioner but till date the petitioner did not submit those documents which have been mentioned earlier and requested the complainant to submit those documents either before the OP or in the court to prove his claim.
The complainant filed evidence on affidavit which is nothing but replica of complaint petition except the information of submission of documents relating to purchase of new transformer.
Both sides advanced arguments which are heard in full.
From the discussion herein above, we find the following Issues/Points for consideration.
ISSUES/POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
1). Whether the Complainant Mujkura is a ‘Consumer’ of the Opposite Party?
2).Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
3).Whether the OPs carried on unfair trade practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards the Complainant?
4).Whether the complainant proved his case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to him?
DECISION WITH REASONS
In the light of discussions here in above we find that the issues/points should be decided based on the above perspectives.
(1).Whether the complainant Mujkura Bibi is a ‘Consumer’ of the opposite party?
From the materials on record it is transparent that the Complainant is a “Consumer” as provided by the spirit of section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. As the complainant herein is enjoying electricity supplied by the OP Company for cultivating his land and it is admitted by the OP Company being the service provider.
(2).Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
Both the complainant and opposite party are residents/carrying on business within the district of Murshidabad. The complaint valued within Rs.20,00,000/- limit of this Forum. So, this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case.
(3).Whether the opposite party carried on Unfair Trade Practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards the Complainant?
The opposite party being the largest Electric Supply Company throughout the state having a lot of offices, power stations, substations and power generating stations decorated with a lot of expert hands and running its business with goodwill for a long period and providing/rendering service for development of society as well as implementing a lot of Govt. programs. So the role of OP Company for the development of the society is unquestionable.
The OP herein is the Station Manager of an office of the largest electric supply company throughout the State of W.B. The Company WBSEDCL running its business throughout the state except territorial jurisdiction of Kolkata Corporation. The OP Company is providing power in the rural areas in different projects for a long period. That is why the consumers in the rural areas are highly grateful to the Company. While providing powers throughout the state it also suffers from many discrepancies. Like not sending/ preparing bills in due time or sending bills for a period when the powers are discontinued and not taking reading regularly as a result the consumers suffer from paying accumulated units at a higher rate. As a consequence the consumers suffer a lot and make their grievances for remedy.
The case of the complainant is that she has agricultural connection being consumer I.D. No. 313303037. During the existence of power connection in her mini deep the transformer from which the OP supplied power was stolen as a result the complainant with the prior permission of the OP installed a transformer for smooth running of the mini deep to cultivate her land. She has no standing order of the OP in respect of installing the transformer but getting verbal assurance from the end of the OP she installed the same for smooth running her mini deep. Thereafter when the cost of the transformer was not adjusted by the OP then the complainant filed the instant complaint for deficiency of service and prayed for redressal. The OP denied the verbal permission of installing the transformer and served a letter to the complainant dated 23.11.2016 to produce Offer letter from A.E.& S.M. Nabagram CCC, WBSEDCL, for purchasing of transformer, Despatch instruction from Z.M., Berhampore (D) Zone, WBSEDCL, gurantee certificate, tax Invoice, Transfomer test certificate, Challan, Test results from Berhampore Zonal testing, Berhampore (D) Zone, WBSEDCL & Money receipts. But the complainant produced Tax Invoice, Challan & Gurantee Certificate of D.S. Enterprise, Chandannagore, Hooghly dated 09.02.2012. The agent on behalf of the OP assailed that the Transformer in question was stolen on 21.05.2014 but the said transformer was purchased on 09.02.2012 in the name of one Md. Ohab Ali then it can be presumed that the complainant was aware of theft of transformer and the said transformer is not new one at the point of installing. Whatever may it be the installation of the transformer by the complainant is unquestionable and the OP never denied such installation except demanding a few documents from the complainant in respect of the impugned installation of transformer. So we may hold that the complainant installed the transformer for uninterrupted power in her agricultural premises the cost of which is to be adjusted with the outstanding dues.
After perusing the documents and case record we are in the considered opinion to make a direction upon the OP to prepare a fresh bill deducting the cost of the transformer amounting to Rs 34,000/- and then make 10 installments to be payable by the complainant within the 1st week of each month and after getting 1st installment reconnect the power connection of the complainant. Present bills are to be generated in accordance with the present reading.
4).Whether the complainant proved her case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to him?
The discussion made herein before, we have no hesitation to come in a conclusion that the complainant proved his case by filing evidence. The Opposite Party is under liability to adjust the cost of the transformer with the outstanding bills as per the order of this Forum.
Hence it is ordered that the Complaint Case No.140/2016 be and the same is allowed in part on contest against the OP.
The OP is directed to prepare a fresh bill deducting the cost of the transformer amounting to Rs 34,000/- and then make 10 installments and each installments are to be payable by the complainant within the 1st week of each month and after getting 1st installment reconnect the power connection of the complainant. The current bills are to be prepared in accordance with the reading as reflected in the meter card. The OP should take appropriate steps so that the consumer should not meet such a liability to pay bills of huge accumulated units and disconnection for nonpayment of such bills. The OP is further directed to change the meter if it is found defective.
No other reliefs are awarded to the complainant.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their Ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/sent by ordinary post forthwith, for information & necessary action.
Dictated and corrected by me.
