OFFICE  OF  THE  DISTRICT  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL FORUM, KAMRUP,GUWAHATI

C.C.53/2013

Present:-

1) Md.Sahadat Hussain, A.J.S.         -President

2) Smti Archana Deka Lahkar         - Member

3) Md Jamatul Islam                         - Member

Sri Deva Kumar Saikia                                                           -Complainant

S/O- Late Purna Kanta Saikia

R/O- Barbari (Upper Hengrabari),

Opp.Sankardev Shishu Niketan

Guwahati-36, Dist-Kamrup,Assam

  -VS-

1)   The Chairman, Assam Power Distribution  Co.Ltd.      -Opp.Party

Head Office at Bijuli Bhawan,Paltanbazar,Guwahati-08

2)   The Chief General Manager (HR),

Assam Power Distribution  Co.Ltd.     

Bijuli Bhawan,Paltanbazar,Guwahati-08

3)  The Deputy General Manager,

Assam Power Distribution  Co.Ltd. ,

Guwahati Electrical Circle-I,Ulubari,Guwahati-07    

4)  The Assistant Manager,APDCL

Basistha Sub Division,Guwahati-22

Appearance:

Ld advocate Mr Sudrashan  Adhyapak for the complainant  but none appears for the opp. party .

Date of argument -11/06/2018   

Date of judgment -25/06/2018  

EXPARTE JUDGMENT

This is a proceeding U/S- 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

1. The complaint filed by Sri Deva Kumar Saikia against  the Chairman, Assam Power Distribution Company Ltd. ,Guwahati , Chef General Manager(HR), Assam Power Distribution Company  Ltd., Bijulee Bhawan ,Guwahati-08 ,Deputy General Manager , Assam Power Distribution Company  Ltd.,Guwahati Electrical Circle -I, Ulubari,Guwahati and the Assistant Manager, Assam Power Distribution Company Ltd.,Basistha Electrical Sub-Division,Guwahati-22 was admitted on 03/06/2013 and the Opp.Party No-4 i.e. Sub-Divisional Engineer Assam Power Distribution Company Ltd.,Basistha Electrical Sub-Division,  filed written statement on behalf of all the opp. parties. The  complainant filed his evidence on affidavit on 07/04/2015 but the opp. party side , after getting several chances for cross examining the complainant side witness , did not turn up to cross examine the complainant side witness and in result  this forum vide order dtd.27/02/2018 directed that, the case against all the opp. parties will proceed on exparte . Thereafter , Ld advocate Mr Sudarshan Nath Adhyapak , on 04/05/2018  filed exparte written argument on behalf of the complainant and forwarded his exparte oral  argument for the complainant side on 11/06/2018 and today  we deliver the judgment giving reasons as below:

2. The case of the complainant , in brief, is that , he has been taking electrical power from the opp. party vide Consumer No-009000010942 , Meter No-44049 with 3 KW load capacity in his house as domestic  electricity and had also been paying electricity charge till November , 2012 but in the month of July,2012 he noticed that the bills reflected same reading (64547) , the opp. party had  been charging exhorbitant amount which is a inflated  bill and accordingly he on  16/08/2012 personally  met the S.D.O, Basistha Electrical Sub Division (APDCL) and apprising him that , the defective meter reading and the S.D.O. advised him to pay Rs.150 for checking the  meter and he also deposited said amount but no one from the opp. party turned up to check up his meter. Inspite of raising objection by him  the opp. party issued the following bills to him -

and  he paid the bills in the hope of rectification  of the defect in the meter except the bills for the period w.e.f  04/03/2013 to 03/04/2013 (Rs.8,378) and the period w.e.f. 03/04/2013 to 03/05/2013 (Rs.16,756) . The  opp. parties did not take steps for  checking or replacement of his meter but continued issuing bills with exhorbitant amount and then he , on 20/09/2012 submitted a written  application to that effect to the SDO of Basistha Electrical Sub-Division pointing  out such irregularities  in the bills as well as  inaction on the matter of checking  the meter but the opp. parties did not take any step for repairing / removal  of the defective meter and in result  his premises got electrocuted from the said defective meter and he also reported the said matter to the SDO of Basistha Electrical Sub-Division(APDCL) , but no action was taken for removing the  danger to human life and then he requested Opp.Party No-4 to take necessary steps but all of his efforts turned in-vain. Since 16/08/2012 he communicated  to concerned authority verbally , telephonically  and written complaints , but inspite of receipt of all the information the opp. parties had  not come forward to attend his grievances, rather they are threatening to disconnect electricity line to his premises. For such lapses and negligence as well as inferior service, he has been compelled to  make excess payment putting him in financial loss and suffering mental agony and pain and as such opp. parties are liable to pay compensation to him. Therefore, he approached this forum to direct the opp. parties to check up and replace the meter no-44049 installed in  his premises to draw up average bill for the period from 03/07/2012 to 03/05/2013  and adjust the payment so far made by him with the subsequent bills, to award Rs.20,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony to him and also cost for their inferior and negligent service towards him and not to disconnect the electric power connection to his house.

3.             The pleading of the opp. parties is that, the complaint is barred by limitations; it has no cause of action ; it is bad for non joinder of necessary parties and misjoinder of parties;  it is not maintainable in the present form  and adequate court fees had not been paid. It is  fact that the complainant has been  enjoying  domestic electricity connection  provided by them . But they have not been  charging exorbitant  amount of electricity bill and when they received a complaint from  the complainant regarding his electricity bill and his defective meter, their meter testing team went to the resident of the complainant on 04/09/2012 and 15/09/2012 to test the meter but fail to test the meter due to some voltage related problems but meter was sent to TNC Division, Electrical Circle-I,Ulubari , Guwahati for testing the same and during the period from 13/10/12 to 03/12/12 they  raised average bills as because there was no meter in the complainant premises and after testing the meter it was found ok and same meter was installed in his premises and bills were raised as per meter reading and after installation of the meter revised bills were raised as per meter reading and earlier average bills were adjusted in the revised bills , which they inform the complainant vide letter No-SDE/BESD.T-18/2012 dtd.10/12/12 after reinstallation  of the meter on 03/12/12 after getting the meter and finding it ok, due to some communication gap between the complainant and some of their officials some  deiscrepencies arise regarding preparation  of bills and when these discrepencies were found , the said average bills were adjusted with subsequent bills about which they inform the complainant vide letter dtd.13/06/13 . The  revise bills which were prepared on the basis of meter reading cannot be termed as illegal. Disoputed bill dtd.03/10/12 to 03/12/12 prepared on average basis as at that time . There was  no meter in the residence of the complainant as the bill was prepared basing on the  reading of the meter and as the meter was found correct after testing it , question of paying compensation  to the complainant does not arise. The bill was prepared on the basis of meter reading. The bill cannot be termed as illegal. They have  not committed  any wrong to prepare these bills and taking advantage of interim order dtd.11/06/2013 passed by this forum , the complainant has not paid the bill even the current energy bills and in respect an amount of Rs.22,607/- is due from him. In such circumstances  and facts the complaint is devoid of any merit  and it is liable to be dismissed.

4.              We have perused the case record and found that , this forum on 11/06/2013 passed an interim order on the Petition No- 461 dtd.10/06/13 filed by the complainant of main case under Section -12 (36) of Consumer Protection Act,1986 directing the opp. parties to maintain status quo in connection  of electricity to the premises of the complainant bearing meter no -44049 till final disposal of the said petition (Misc Case No-03/13) but the said misc. case  was dismissed by this forum for default of the complainant /petitioner vide our order dtd.25/06/14.

5.               We have perused the evidence of the complainant and found that the  complainant is narrating what he states in written statement about defect of the meter and inflated billing. In evidence, the complainant admits that  Sub-Divisional Engineer ,Assam Power Distribution Company Ltd.,Basistha Electrical Sub-Division,  vide letter dtd.18/02/14 intimated him that his meter was  tested at MTI laboratory and it was found correct . He states  nothing in his evidence what is the status of connection of electric power to his premises after reinstallation of the meter getting it tested at the MTI laboratory ,and finding it correct. Secondly, he further states that on  10/02/14 and 13/02/14 he submitted letters to the Manager/ Deputy  Manager , APDCL  regarding  extension of load and deposited Rs.6,877/- as charge for load security and Rs.4,950/- as  meter security . This fact is a subsequent fact  having no connection with the facts  narrated by the  complainant in his complaint . Thus ,this fact infers that the complainant agreed with the testing of his meter and its result as well as bill prepared by the opp. party after re-installation of the meter on finding it correct on testing ,meaning  thereby he has  no disagreement with the  average bill as well as revised bill prepared by the opp. parties  and as such it can be said that the complainant  has no cause of action  against the opp. parties. Thirdly, that fact also  infers that presently the complainant has been utilizing  the power connection to his premises provided by the opp. parties and has also been  paying the bills without disputing the bills.

6.                    Summarising above discussion , we have arrived into an opinion  that, the complainant has no cause of action against the opp. parties and  his complaint lacks merit. Therefore, with this exparte judgment the complaint  as filed by the complainant  is dismissed on exparte.

Given under our hands and seal today on this 25^th June,2018.

(Smt Archana Deka Lahkar)                (Md.Jamatul Islam)       (Md.Sahadat Hussain)                                                                                      Member                                                      Member                               President