West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/107/2014

Sri Madhusudan Kuiti. - Complainant(s)

Versus

StationManager, W.B.S.E.D.C.L. - Opp.Party(s)

10 Mar 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

 Complaint case No.107/2014                                                                                             Date of disposal: 10/03/2015                               

 BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT :  Mr. Sujit Kumar Das.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mrs. Debi Sengupta.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mr. Kapot Chattopadhyay.

  

 For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff : Mr. S. Das, Advocate.

 For the Defendant/O.P.S.                       : Mr. D. Das Mahapatra, Advocate.                                   

          

 Sri Madhusudan Kuiti, S/O Late Krishna Prasad Kuiti, Vill. & P.O. Bhangabandh, P.S. Debra,

 Dist. Paschim Medinipur…………..Complainant

                                                           Vs.

1)Station Manager, Lowada, W.B.S.E.D.C.L., at Lowada, P.O. Lowada, P.S. Debra, Dist. Paschim Medinipur, PIN.721136.

2)Assistant Engineer, Balichak Group Electric Supply, W.B.S.E.D.C.L., At Balichak, P.O. Balichak, P.S. Debra, Dist. Paschim Medinipur, PIN.721124...……………Op.

              The case of the complainant Sri Madhusudan Kuiti, in short, is that he is a farmer having electricity connection for using motor pump for the purpose of his cultivation under service connection No.7084, Consumer No. S023320 and making regular payment of electricity bill @ Rs.600/- to 700/- per month as raised by the OP on average consumption.   It is alleged by the complainant that he suddenly received an erroneous, vague & fabricated bill dated 16/05/2014 demanding Rs.6,077/- for the period from 23/03/2014 to 22/04/2014.  Against the disputed bill the complainant submitted an application for it correction.  But the OP did not consider the same, rather they continues to same bills for subsequent months mentioning therein the outstanding amount as of the said disputed bills.  Moreover, the OP threatens to disconnect the service connection.  Getting no reliefs from the OP, the complainant has ultimately come before us with a prayer for passing order against the OP for correction of the disputed bill. In this connection, some documents viz disputed bill dated 16/05/2014, copies of two applications and a bunch of paid up bills are submitted by the Complainant.  

         The Op contested the case by filling written objection challenging that the case is not

Contd……………..P/2

 

-  ( 2 ) -

 

maintainable for want of cause of action.  But it is admitted by the OP that the meter is defective and the disputed bill was prepared on estimation of consumption against previous paid up bills.  The defective meter will be changed as early as possible conditioning the complainant for payment of the said bill which is legal valid and genuine.  Apart from that, the case is not maintainable as the complainant is consuming electricity for commercial purpose.  In view of the case there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP and as such the case should be dismissed.

          Upon the case of both parties the following issues are framed.

Issues:

1)Whether the case is maintainable in its present from?

2)Whether the complainant has any cause of action for presentation of this petition of complaint?

3)Whether the disputed bill is legal valid and genuine?           

4)Whether the complainant is entitled for getting relief as prayed for.?

 

Decision with reasons

Issue Nos.1 to 4:

              All the issues are taken up together for discussion as those are interlinked each other for the purpose of arriving at a correct decision in the dispute.

              Ld. Advocate for the complainant made his argument that the disputed bill is very much unmatched with all other previous bills already paid by the complainant since the time of installation of service connection.  For supporting the fact, Ld. Advocate has referred to the paid up bills.  The disputed bills showing the consumption of units is very much unusually high, imaginary and impractical which cannot be accepted for consumption in a month.  The OP goes on threatening for disconnection of supply in the event of non-payment of the disputed bill.  The complainant several time requested for correction of the bill.  But the OP did not care for it.  It is pointed out by the Ld. Advocate that since the electric meter is admittedly defective and the bills were prepared on estimated average of units consume on all previous consumption and similarly the disputed bill has been prepared on that practice.  This is totally deficiency of service on the part of the OP/W.B.S.E.D.C.L.  Thus, favourable order is required to be passed by the Ld. Forum.

           Strong objection raised by the Ld. Advocate representing the OP that the bill in question is genuinely prepared on the basis of estimated average and as such no deficiency in service is taken place as alleged by the complainant.  So, the case should be dismissed.

        We have carefully considered the case.  The paid up bills from June 2008 to March 2014 which are very much relevant, vital and reasonable for the purpose of assessment of the disputed

Contd……………..P/3

 

-  ( 3 ) -

 

bill 16/05/2014 since the admitted fact that the OP used to raise the previous bills on estimated average of unit consumed even upon the defective meter.

        Upon careful scrutiny of the undisputed paid up bills for the year 2008, 2009, 2010 2011,2012, 2013 & 2014, it prima facie appears total units  relating to those bills  are appeared to be 10841 units.  If that be so, it is very much difficult for accepting the units appearing in the disputed bill admittedly based on defective meter.  In this connection, it is also very difficult to rectify the disputed bill in absence of any scientific mechanism, but, on mathematics calculation in respect of previously raised bills which were already paid by way of regular practice of the complainant from the year 2008, specially when the electric meter was admittedly defective.  So, we have preferred to consider the units from the year 2008 to 2014 in order to arrive at a just, fair and reasonable correction of the disputed bill dated 16/05/2014. 

Upon consideration of the units of estimated against paid up bills from June 2008 up to March 2014, the bill dated 16/05/2014 deserves for 337 units which the OP/ W.B.S.E.D.C.L. is reasonably entitled to get the charged by way of raising a modified bill in place of said disputed bill in question.

        Having considered the entire case of the parties as discussed hereinabove, It is held and decided that the disputed bill dated 16/05/2014 is baseless, hypothetical and not reasonable and as such the same deserves to be rectified for the purpose of preparation of a correct and modified bill on account of equitable claim of energy for 337 units.  Thus, the issues are disposed of in favour of the complainant.

                         Hence,

                                 It is Ordered, 

                                             that the case be and the same is allowed  on contest  without cost.

             The complainant shall make payment of electricity bill on account of 337 units alongwith usual meter rent etc. as to be raised by the OP/W.B.S.E.D.C.L. disputed bill dated 16/05/2014 against the complainant within 30 days from this date of order.               

Dictated & Corrected by me

              

         President                                    Member                        Member                               President

                                                                                                                                           District Forum

                                                                                                                                        Paschim Medinipur.