BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
CACHAR :: SILCHAR
Con. Case No. 45 of 2012
Alhaj Mustakim Ali Laskar, ………………………………………. Complainant.
-V/S-
1. Sub- Divisional Officer,
ASEB, Kalain Sub-Division,
P.O. Kalain, P.S. Katigorah,
District, Cachar, Assam. Opp. Party.
Present: - Sri Bishnu Debnath, President,
District Consumer Forum,
Cachar, Silchar.
Mrs. Chandana Purkayastha, Member,
District Consumer Forum,
Cachar, Silchar.
Shri Kamal Kumar Sarda, Member,
District Consumer Forum,
Cachar, Silchar.
Appeared :- Eunus Ahmed Mazumder, Advocate for the complainant.
Sri Kironendu Dutta Choudhury, Advocate for the O.P.
Date of Evidence……………………….. 21-12-2012, 04-09-2013
Date of written argument……………… 06-06-2015, 09-05-2017
Date of judgment………………………. 11-08-2017
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
Sri Bishnu Debnath,
- The complaint brought by Alhaj Mustakim Ali Laskar a Electricity Consumer vide Consumer No. 133000009809 of ASEB, Kalain Sub-Division for award of compensation under Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the SDO, ASEB, Kalain because the O.P was raising Electricity Bill in connection with his Meter No. 101046038 without reading the meter but on average basis.
- Accordingly, notice issued. The O.P submitted W/S. In the W/S stated inter alia that the Meter mentioned above was giving irregular reading for which as per AERC Rules the average bill were issuing on the basis of load factor. The O.P also stated that the defective meter has not been replaced yet because the complainant did not supply new meter. It is also informed that no new electric meter was available in the ASEB store for which the complainant is to purchase electric meter from market. As such the O.P submitted further that there is no disservice on the part of the ASEB.
- During hearing the complainant deposed on oath and exhibited relevant electric bill vide Ext.1 to Ext.12 right from 10-02-2011 to 10-05-2012. The O.P also examined Sri Bidhu Bhusan Deb as D.W-1.
- Perused the written argument of the Ld. Advocate of the parties. Also perused evidence on record. However, none has appeared on date fixed for oral argument.
- It is admitted fact that the complainant is consumer of the O.P and the O.P raised average electric energy consumption bill vide Ext.1 to Ext.12 on the basis of load factor. The complainant took the plea that electric meter is OK and the O.P negligently without reading the meter issuing average bill but the contesting O.P did not agree. The plea of the O.P is that the electric meter is not giving regular reading for which average bills were issuing.
- If the electric meter is defective than it is the duty of the O.P to inform the complainant officially but no official correspondence is available in the record. Of course, the D.W stated that defect of the meter was verbally informed to the complainant and also informed that no electric meter was available in the stock of ASEB for which a new electric meter s required to purchase by the complainant from the market.
- In the evidence on record though said fact is deposed and prior to that in the W/S the said fact stated by the O.P but the complainant in the deposition did not reverted the said fact. Hence, it is presumed that the fact of defect in the electric meter was known to the complainant. So, as per rules, he is to supply a new working condition electric meter to the O.P for replacement of the defective electric meter. Of course, the O.P could bring a new working condition meter and replace the old defective one and may raise bill for replacement and take monthly rental but O.P convincingly bring the fact that no meter was available in the stock at the Office. So, in our considered view when defective meter is known to the Complainant, he ought to purchase a meter from market and supply to the O.P for replacing the old defective one. He did no discharge his duty.
- Hence, in the instant case, we do not find any disservice on the part of the O.P for not replacing the defective electric meter and raising average bill.
- So far as average electricity bills are concern the complainant did not adduce any evidence to conclude that the energy bills were calculated wrongly by charging excess amount. Rather it is revealed from the exhibited electricity bills that the complainant was not paying the bills regularly. For which arrear amount added in the subsequent bill with surcharge.
- Hence, in the above premises, we do not find any disservice or deficiency of service on the part of the O.P. So, no relief is granted to the complainant.
- Thus, the case is dismissed on contest without any cost. Supply free certified copy of judgment to the parties.
Given under the hand of the President and Members of this District Forum and seal of the Office of the District Forum on this the 11th day of August, 2017.
