Tripura

West Tripura

CC/14/67

Shri Mrityunjoy Saha - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chairman Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited (TSECL) and others - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.A.Saha,Mr.K.Nandi,Mr.J.Paul

07 Dec 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

    CASE NO:  CC-  67 of 2014

Sri Mrityunjoy Saha,
S/O- Late Lal Mohan Saha,
Studio Kalpana, 
Motor Stand, Agartala, 
West Tripura.            .............Complainant.
    
         ______VERSUS______

     1. Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd. 
Represented by the Chairman,
Budhjung Chowmuhani, Opp. Bhutaria,
Agartala, Tripura West.

     2. Senior Manager,
Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd.,
Electrical Sub-Division No. I,
Banamalipur, Agartala, 
Tripura West.            ...........Opposite Parties.
            

                    __________PRESENT__________

 SRI S. C. SAHA
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SHR. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

C O U N S E L

For the Complainant    : Sri Amrit Lal Saha,
                  Sri Kajal Nandi,
                  Sri Abheek Saha and 
                  Sri Joydeep Paul,
                  Advocates.
                                               
For the Opposite Parties    : Miss Rajashree Purakayastha,
                  Advocate.

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:  07.12.15

J U D G M E N T

        This is a complaint U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein after referred to as 'the Act') filed by the complainant, Sri Mrityunjoy Saha of Motor Stand, Agartala, West Tripura against the O.Ps, namely Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd., represented by its Chairman and the Senior Manager, Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd., Electrical Sub-Division No- I, Banamalipur, Agartala over a consumer dispute alleging negligence and deficiency in rendering service on the part of the O.Ps. 

2.            The fact of the case as gathered from the record is that the complainant is a consumer under the O.P. No.1. His consumer ID number is 01000117260000192. He is paying electricity bill regularly as per bills raised by the O.P. No.2 time to time. The complainant has been running a Studio under the name and style 'Kalpana Studio' at the premises where the aforesaid electricity connection was given. On 06.07.14 he was surprised to receive an electricity bill for Rs.3,23,551/- raised by the O.P. No.2 for the period from 02.06.14 to 01.07.14. Having received the said bill he submitted a representation dated 14.07.14 to the O.P. No.2 raising objection against the inflated bill drawn by him. Upon receipt of the representation, the O.P. No.2 by a letter dated 17.07.14 intimated him that after generation of bill a preliminary verification of connected load and present meter reading was conducted in his shop premisses by a team comprising of 3 technical experts on 10.07.14 and found that the electricity bill raised by O.P. No.2 tallied with the present reading of the generated bill and thus the O.P. No.2 was of the opinion that the bill so raised was absolutely correct. Thereafter on 21.07.14 the complainant wrote another letter to the O.P. No.2 requesting to allow him to pay the amount of the disputed bill in 30 installments. Surprisingly, the O.P. No.2 by not considering his representation served a notice upon him on 04.08.14 threatening to disconnect the electricity connection if the disputed bill amount was not paid within 7 days. According to the complainant, the conduct of the O.Ps constituted negligence and deficiency in rendering service on the part of the O.Ps.

3.            The complaint was contested by the O.Ps by filing written objection stating, interalia, that all the previous bills of the complainant prior to the disputed bill dated 06.07.14 were wrongly calculated. This happened due to the wrong act on the part of the complainant who in connivance with the meter reader manipulated the meter reading. The meter reading for all previous months actually should have been in 5 digits where by manipulation the complainant showed it in 4 digits. As a result,  every time the bill came much less than the actual bill. When the meter reading for the bill period with effect from 02.06.14 to 01.07.14 was taken accurately, the actual units of electricity consumed by the complainant finally came out. Further that, the complainant made a request to the O.P. No.2 for allowing him 30 installments which was partially considered by the O.Ps to the extent of 15 installments by an order dated 20.08.14. But before the same could be intimated to the complainant, he filed the present complaint before this Forum. It is denied that the O.Ps were negligent and deficient in rendering service to the complainant.
        
4.            No primary or secondary evidence has been adduced by the complainant.
        
5.            On the other hand, one Sri Palash Roy, Senior Manager, ESD-I, Banamalipur, Agartala (O.P.No.2) has examined himself as O.P.W.1 and has proved and exhibited the following documents:
    Exhibit A- Bill dated 06.07.14, 
    Exhibit B- Letter dated 06.09.14 of the O.P. No.2, 
    Exhibit C- Copy of letter dated 17.07.14 of the O.P. No.2,
    Exhibit D- Copy of letter dated 21.07.14 of the complainant.

        Findings:
6.            The points that would arise for consideration in this proceeding is whether the O.Ps were negligent and deficient in rendering service to the complainant.
7.            We have already heard arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Also perused the pleadings, documents on record, evidence adduced by the O.P. No.2 and the memorandum of written arguments filed by the parties meticulously.

8.        It is the allegation of the complainant that the O.P. no.2 raised the impugned electricity bill dated 06.07.14 for Rs.3,23,551/- for the period from 02.06.14 to 01.07.14 most arbitrarily though he did never consume that much of electricity. He verbally requested  the O.P. No.2 followed by written representation to reduce the inflated bill amount, but the O.P. no.2 turned a deaf ear to his representation.

9.            While arguing the case, learned counsel appearing for the complainant contended that during the course of verification of the complainant's meter and assessing the load generated by him the provisions of Regulations 14(2)(a), 15(2), 16, 17(2)(3) of Central Electricity Authority (Installation and operation of Meters) Regulations, 2008 were not followed.

10.            On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the O.Ps vehemently controverted the submission made by the learned counsel for the complainant saying that Regulation 14 is meant for meter reading and recording. The O.Ps maintained data base of all the information associated with the complainant's meter. In the present case, the data was wrongly recorded basing on the false information given by the meter reader in connivance with the complainant. Therefore, it can not be said that the O.P. did not maintain data base information associated with the complainant's meter. As regards Regulation 15(2), it is submitted that this provision relates to checking of meter after receiving complaints from the consumer. In the present case, the O.Ps conducted verification of the meter by a team of experts in presence of the complainant and hence it can not be said that the provision of Regulation 15(2) was not followed.

11.            It is the plea of he O.Ps that the complainant in connivance with the meter reader  manipulated the actual reading of the meter, for which in every month units consumed by the complainant had been shown in 4 digits instead of 5 digits resulting in less amount of energy charges shown in the bills. It appears that in response to the representation made by the complainant to the O.P. No.2 on 14.07.14 against the disputed electricity bill raised by the O.P. No.2 for the period from 02.06.14 to 01.07.14, a team comprising of 3 technical experts visited the shop premisses of the complainant on 11.07.14 and tested the  meter in presence of the complainant. On verification of the complainant's meter, they found that the bill so raised was in consonance with the units actually consumed by the complainant.

12.            It is seen that the complainant by a letter dated 21.07.14 requested the O.P. No.2 for allowing him to pay the entire amount of the disputed bill in 30 installments. This would go to show that the complainant accepted the correctness of the amount billed for. It has also come out from the pleadings that acting on the letter dated 21.07.14 of the complainant the O.P. No.2 granted him 15 installments to pay the entire amount of the disputed bill. During the course of argument, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the O.Ps that this Forum by an interim order dated 12.11.14 passed in Case No. CC(Misc)- 04 of 2014 allowed the complainant to pay the amount of the disputed electricity bill  in 15 installments. But the complainant without taking the benefit of installments paid the entire amount of the disputed bill at a time. 
13.            We have gone through the Regulations 14,15,16 and 17 of the Central Electricity Authority(Installation and Operation of Meters) Regulations, 2008. On perusal of the same, it does not seem to us that the O.Ps violated the provisions of the said Regulation. From the pleadings and the evidence of the O.P.W.1 it has come out that in response to the representation filed by the complainant a team comprising of 3 technical experts visited the shop premises of the complainant and verified the meter. They found that the bill so raised was absolutely correct. The evidence of the O.P.W.1 also speaks that during spot verification it was found that the actual meter reading was shown in 4 digits instead of 5 digits resulting in accumulation of units actually consumed and the inflated amount of Rs.3,23,551/- was shown in the disputed  bill and such manipulation was done by the complainant in connivance with the meter reader. We do not find any ground to disbelieve the evidence of the O.P.W.1 since nothing material has come out from his cross examination to discard his evidence.
14.            It appears that the complainant without waiting for the final outcome of the case and also without taking the advantage of interim order dated 12.11.14 passed in CC(Misc)-04 of 2014  voluntarily paid the entire amount of the disputed bill at a time. It means the complainant accepted the correctness of the impugned bill raised by the O.P. No. 2. 
15.            For the reasons aforementioned, we are of the view that the complainant  has failed to make out a case that the O.Ps were guilty of negligence and were deficient in rendering service to him.
16.            Consequently the complaint U/S 12 of the Act filed by the complainant is dismissed being devoid of any merit. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.  
        
17.                  A N N O U N C E D

 

SRI S. C. SAHA
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 
SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  AGARTALA, WEST TRIPURA.    SHRI. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  AGARTALA, WEST TRIPURA.