West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/85/2015

Sri Uttam Kumar Dey - Complainant(s)

Versus

The A.E & Station Manager, Midnapore C.C.C., W.B.S.E.D.C. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Swapan Bhattarcharya

28 Apr 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

Pulak Kumar Singha, Member

and

 Sagarika Sarkar, Member.

  

Complaint Case No.85/2015

 

             Sri Uttam Kumar Dey, S/O Late Bijoy Krishna Dey, Residing at Netaji Pally, Rangamati,   

             P.O. Medinipur, P.S. Kotwali, Dist. Paschim Medinipur. ………..……Complainant.

                                                                              Vs.

1)The A.E. & Station Manager, Medinipur C.C.C., W.B.S.E.D.C.L., Dist. Paschim Medinipur,

2)The Chairman, W.B.S.E.D.C.L., Bidyut Bhaban, at Saltlake City, Kolkata-700091....……….….Opp. Parties.                                                    

              For the Complainant: Mr.  Swapan Bhattacherjee, Advocate.

              For the O.P.               : Mr. Debi Das Mahapatra, Advocate.

 

Decided on: -28/04/2017

                               

ORDER

                    Bibekananda Pramanik, President – This is the case U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, filed by Sri Uttam Kumar Dey against the O.P.-A.E. and Station Manager, Medinipur, W.B.S.E.D.C.L.

                     Facts of the case, in brief, are that the complainant is a bonafide consumer of O.P.-W.B.S.E.D.C.L.  having it’s meter no. E 163708 vide consumer I.D no.212067905.  The complainant paid electric bills to the O.P. according to their demand and nothing is due till the date of filing of the complainant except the disputed bills.  From the very beginning,  O.P. no.1 did not provide any yellow card with the meter when it was installed.  The meter reader used to come to the house of the complainant and used to take note of the meter reading  in the reading book regularly.  Complainant regularly paid electricity bills but the service of the O.P. no.1 is not satisfactory from the very beginning.  Complainant on several times, met the O.P. no.1 and requested him to provide yellow card to the

Contd…………….P/2

 

 

( 2 )

 complainant but the O.P. no.1 is very much reluctant to solve the problem.  Complainant paid electric bill to the O.P. up to the month of October, 2014 and there is no outstanding dues.  All on a sudden, on 25/06/2015, the complainant received the electric bill dated 24/06/2015 of  Rs.33,479/- for the month of February 2014, December 2014 and January 2015 and an unknown meter number has been mentioned as H 094800.  After receiving the said bill, the complainant became astonished and he met the O.P. no.1 and asked him the reason for such high rising bill but the O.P. no.1 misbehaved with the complainant and refused to give any kind of clarification and he also threatened the complainant that the service connection will be disconnected.  It is stated that actual consumption unit of the complainant is 300 units in every three months.  On the next day i.e. on 26/06/2015, the complainant received another bill for the month of February, 2015 to April, 2915 vide bill dated 25/06/2015 for Rs.65,680/- regarding the self same meter number  including the amount of the bill dated 24/06/2015. It is stated that in the mean time on 27/04/2014, O.P. no.1 issued a meter card to the complainant mentioning the meter number as H094800.  After receiving the said bill dated 25/06/2015, the complainant again met the O.P. no.1 and requested him to rectify those illegal bills and to issue proper bill as per consumption but the O.P. no.1 did not pay any heed.  It is stated that those bills are illegal, baseless, imaginary and arbitrary.  Complainant therefore prays that O.P. no.1 be directed to rectify those bills dated 24/6/2015 and 25/06/2015 and to issue regular bill as per consumption and for an award of compensation of Rs.25,000/- for deficiency in service, mental pain and agony and for an award of Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost.

                Both the opposite parties have contested this case by filling a joint written objection.

                Denying and disputing the case of the complainant, it is the specific case of the opposite parties that after effecting new service connection, O.P. supplied meter card to the complainant but from the very beginning, the complainant and his family members did not co-operate with the meter reader for taking reading of that meter.  Meter card was issued on several times and lastly the same was served to the complainant being card no.4159873.  It is stated that the matter was duly informed to the complainant vide memo no.MCCC/E.6/1066 dated 18/08/2015 and the said letter was received by one Moni Rana on 20/05/2015 said to be the number of the complainant’s family. It is stated that meternumber was subsequently rectified as H094800.  The meter reader of the O.P used to visit the complainant’s premises for taking note of the meter reading  but the meter reader failed to entered into  the premises due to non accessible of the premises.  Therefore the meter reader lodged a complaint before the O.P.  Due to such non co-operation, meter

Contd…………….P/3

 

 

( 3 )

reader could not collect actual reading regularly and all earlier bills were therefore generated with very minimum reading.  Billing unit  for the period from February, 2012 to onwards have been mentioned in the schedule of  the written objection.  Practically bill for the period from November, 2014 to January, 2015 is Rs.34,181/- and bill for the period from February, 2015 to April, 2015 is Rs.65,680 /- including the outstanding dues of     Rs.34181/-. So actually the amount of the bill for the period from February, 2015 to April 2015,  is Rs.32,162/-.  It is stated that consumption of the complainant in respect of those bills is 624 units for quarter.  It is stated that the bills dated  24/6/2015 and  25/6/2015 were made in view of real consumption of the complainant. For ascertaining the real consumption, the meter being no.H094800 may be sent to appropriate laboratory for analyzing and testing the same.  It is stated by the O.Ps that there is no deficiency in service on their part and therefore the Consumer Protection Act has no application in this case and the O.Ps therefore claim dismissal of the complaint with cost.

                 To prove their respective cases, the complainant has examined himself as PW-1 by tendering a written examination-in-chief and during his evidence on oath, few documents were marked as exhibit 1 to 26 respectively.  On the other hand, O.Ps have examined O.P. no.1 Puspendu Pal, the Station Manager as O.PW-1 by tendering a written examination-in-chief and during his evidence on oath, three documents were marked as exhibit A to C respectively.  O.Ps have also examined another witness namely Uma Sankar Chakraborty as OPW-2 and during his evidence, two documents were marked as exhibit D & E respectively.

                                                                 Points for decision

1)Is the case maintainable in it’s present form and prayer ?

2)Is the complainant  a consumer of the O.P. ?

3)Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties ?

4)Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs, as sought for ? 

5)Decision with reasons

For the sake of convenience and brevity, all the above points are taken up together for consideration.

It is not denied and disputed that the complainant is a consumer of electricity of the O.P.-W.B.S.E.D.C.L.  Deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. has been alleged by the complainant on the ground that although he was regularly paying electric bills to the O.P. no.1 till the month of October, 2014 and although there was no outstanding dues but all on a sudden on 25/6/2015, the complainant received a bill dated 24/6/2015 of Rs.33,479/-

Contd…………….P/4

 

 

( 4 )                     

as electric charge for the month of November, 2014 to January, 2015 showing an unknown electric meter no. as H094800 instead  of his actual meter no.163708.  Further according to the complainant that his actual consumption of unit is within 300 units in every three months.  It is also the allegation of the complainant that thereafter on 26/6/2015, he received another electric bill for the month of February, 2015 to April, 2015 of Rs.65,680/- as electric charge including the outstanding amount of the bill dated 24/6/2015.  Suddenly thereafter on 27/6/2015, the O.P. issued a meter card to the complainant showing  meter no. as H094800.  It is further stated by the complainant that since the time of installation of the meter, the O.P. no.1 did not provide any yellow card (meter reading card) in spite of his request.

As against this, it is the case of the O.P. that from very beginning the complainant and his family member did not co-operate with the meter reader in taking reading of the meter on some frivolous .  However, lastly the meter card was served to the complainant vide card no.4159873.  According to the O.P. since the complainant did not co-operate with the O.P. in taking reading of the meter, so all earlier electric bills of the complainant were generated with very minimum reading.  It is also stated that the bill for the month of November, 2014 to January, 2015 of Rs.34,181/- is legal, valid and genuine and bill for the period from February, 2015 to April, 2015 is Rs.65,680/- including outstanding dues of earlier bill amounting to Rs.34,181/-. It is stated that the consumption of the complainant is 624 unit quarterly.  It is stated further that those two disputed bills were regenerated according to real consumption of electricity by the complainant and those bills are legal and valid.

   About the dispute raised by the complainant regarding the meter number in question, we find that the complainant has alleged that his meter number is E163708 but in those two disputed bills as well as in the newly provided meter card (exhibit-1), his meter

number has been mentioned as H094800.   From the previous electric bills prior to the disputed bills we find that the meter number of the complainant was mentioned as 163708.  On this score, OPW-1, Puspendu Pal, the Station Manager of the O.P. no.1 has stated in his cross-examination that meter no.E163708 was mentioned in all previous bills through mistake.  It is to be mentioned here that during pendency of this case, the disputed meter of the complainant was sent to the Chief Engineer, Distribution Testing Department, Salt Lake City, Sector -V, Kolkata-91 for examination and report vide order no.14 dated 22/2/2016. By the said order, O.P. was permitted to dismantle the complainant’s electric connection meter no.H094800 after installing another meter to the complainant’s service connection for the period of testing in presence of the complainant or his representative on 2/3/2016.  After testing of the meter no.H094800, a report was sent by the CE (Officiating),

Contd…………….P/5

 

 

( 5 )

DTD, W.B.S.E.D.C.L. and from the said report, we find that the meter number has been mentioned as HO94800.  Said meter was undisputedly dismantled from the house of the complainant in his presence and no dispute was raised during trial regarding such dismantle of the said electric meter no.H094800.  Complainant has not produced any such meter being no.E163708 to show and to prove that the actual number of his electric meter is E163708.  In view of that, we are inclined to accept the explanation given by the OPW-1 that through mistake meter number was wrongly mentioned as E163708 in all previous bills prior to the disputed electric bills. 

Regarding taking of reading of the meter, it is alleged by the complainant that since the time of installation of his electric meter, no meter card was provided in his house.  Complainant produced no scrap of paper to show that for such non providing of meter card, he ever made in complaint before the O.P. no.1 in writing. Had it been so that no meter card was provided since the time of the installment of the meter, then it was natural and probable that the complainant would made complaint regarding that before the O.P.  But that has not been done at all. So the said case of the complainant is  neither believable not proved.  On this score, it is the case of the O.P. that the complainant from very beginning did not co-operate with the meter reader in taking reading of the meter.  According to the Ops, the meter was not accessible for which earlier bills were generated with very minimum reading.  On this score, we find from the written examination-in-chief of PW-1 Sri Uttam Kumar Dey that he is a service holder by occupation.  His cross-examination reveals that his wife is also a service holder and she has to attend her duty on working days from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.  When the spouses were both service holder, then the O.P’s case is more acceptable that the meter of the complainants was not accessible for taking reading due to absence of the complainant and his wife in their house.  In view of that, the O.P. had no alternative than to send bills with very minimum reading for the period from February, 2014 till the date of disputed bill.  Subsequently, the meter card was admittedly provided in the house of the complainant and the said meter card has been produced by none else than the complainant himself and the same has been marked as exhibit-1 in his case.  From this meter card (exhibit-1), we find that on 27/4/2015, his reading of the meter was noted as 18063 and on 17/6/2015 reading of the meter was noted as 18601 units.  On mathematical calculation, we find that since the period from 27/4/2015 to 17/6/2015, the complainant consumed 538 units during that period which means that his average consumption in those 50 days was around 10 units per day.  The said meter was sent for testing during the pendency of this case and after such test,  a report has been sent to this Forum by the Chief Engineer, DTD-W.B.S.E.D.C.L., Salt Lake City, Sector-V, Kolkata 91.  From that report we find that

Contd…………….P/6

 

( 6 )

the meter was in order.  Since the meter in question is found to be in order, so the consumption of electricity for the period from 27/4/2015 to 17/6/2015 as shown in the meter card (exhibit-1) cannot be disputed.  We have already stated that from this exhibit-1 it transpires that the complainant consumed 10 units per day during that period of 50 days.  So the case of the complainant that his actual consumption of electricity is within 300 units in every three months is not at all believable.  On the other hand, O.Ps have stated in their w/o in paragraph 7 that the consumption of the complainant is 624 units per quarter.  According to the O.Ps, all previous bills prior to the disputed bills were generated with minimum reading due to non co-operation of the complainant in taking reading of the meter and thereafter they regenerated the consumption of electricity of the disputed meter and the disputed bills were accordingly prepared showing that average quarterly consumption of electricity of the complainant is 624 units.  We have already stated that from exhibit-1, it is found that the complainant consumed 10 units per day during the said period of 50 days w.e.f. 27/4/2015 to 17/6/2015.  In that view of the matter it cannot be held that the disputed electric bills dated 24/6/2015 and 25/6/2015 are illegal, baseless, imaginary and arbitrary, as alleged by the complainant.

        In the above facts and circumstances of the case and in view of our above discussions, we are inclined to hold that the complainant has failed to prove his case and he is therefore not entitled to the reliefs, as prayed for. 

        All the points are accordingly decided against the complainant.  

        In the result, the complaint case fails.   

                                    Hence, it is,

                                                         Ordered,

                                                            that the complaint case no.85/2015  is hereby dismissed on contest but in the circumstances without cost.

                               Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

             Dictated and Corrected by me

                       Sd/-B. Pramanik.      Sd/- P.K. Singha         Sd/- S. Sarkar                Sd/-B. Pramanik.

                            President                    Member                     Member                          President

                                                                                                                                    District Forum

                                                                                                                                 Paschim Medinipur