Tripura

West Tripura

CC/19/2016

Dr. Debdas Singh. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chief Manager, Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd. & 1 another. - Opp.Party(s)

10 Aug 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

CASE   NO:   CC- 19 of 2016

Dr. Debdas Singh,
79 Tilla, P.O. Kunjaban,
P.S. G.B. Out Post, West Tripura.             …..…...Complainant.

VERSUS

1. The Chief Manager,
Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd.,
79 Tilla, Agartala, Tripura.

2. The Senior Manager,
TSECL, Esd-v, G.B. 79 Tilla, 
Agartala, Tripura.                  ...........Opposite parties.

 

      __________PRESENT__________

 SRI A. PAL,
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

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

SRI U. DAS
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

C O U N S E L

    For the Complainant        : Complainant in person.
                         
For the O.P. No.1 & 2        : Miss Rajashree Purkayastha,
                      Advocate.    

        JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:  10.08.2016

 

J U D G M E N T

        This case was filed by one Dr. Debdas Singh U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. Case of the petitioner in short is that on 05.08.14 some officers of the electrical Departments checked his line and asked him to pay arrears for consumption of electricity. He told the manager that no arrears was pending. There was wrong in the meter reading and billing due to fault of the electrical department. Some arrears was claimed. Meter was changed 2/3 times covering 11 years. But actual meter reading was not taken. Petitioner claimed redress before this Forum. 

2.        O.P. appeared, filed W.S denying the claim. It is stated that 3 times the meter was changed. The monthly average consumption was 250 unit in 133 months, total 33250 unit. As per bill total unit consumption was 31981 units by earlier energy meter. It is stated that O.P. takes bill as per unit consumption by the complainant. Old meter was changed. There was no deficiency of service of the O.P. and the claim petitioner is liable to be dismissed.

3.        Claimant petitioner, Debdas Singh produced the meter changing record, bill copy, produced the evidence. It is stated that billing was done not against old meter but from another meter. Energy consumption was shown high in the old meter. He was to pay for the consumption of electricity not consumed. New meter was installed in 2014. Thereafter he was paying the consumption every month and was not complaining.

4.         O.P. produced the statement on affidavit of Ruma Mitra, Senior Manager, GB, Electrical Sub-division. Also produced the details bills regarding consumption of electricity. 

On the basis of all these evidences we shall now determine the grievance of petitioner.

Findings:

6.         Electricity Act provide redressal for the consumers. But this consumer court can give additional redress in addition to the any redress given in the statute. Therefore, this consumer court has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in the matter of deficiency of service by any service provider.

7.        On careful scrutiny of the evidence as given by the petitioner it is difficult to support that false consumption report was given by the TSECL. Through computerized energy billing system billing was done. Petitioner produced no such bill to compare with the bills in question to determine that false billing was done. Petitioner presumed that bill was given against another meter not his meter. But it is not supported by any evidence. He did not produce the consumer book before this Forum to detect his original or not compared with the number given. 
        
7.        O.P. given details bill about consumption of the electricity. There is nothing to support that suddenly higher consumption bill was given and for that the consumption billing was done without basis.  We find no evidence to support the claim of the petitioner. But it is found that O.P. suddenly detected that the consumption bill was not correctly done for a long period and a big amount was claimed from the petitioner. The consumer is not in a position to pay huge bill at a time. We therefore, direct the O.P. for relaxation, reduce the consumption bill charge to the extent of Rs.2000/- as rebate and recover the rest amount by installments & restore electricity connection if disconnected. No other relief is granted to the petitioner. Points are decided accordingly and also disposed. 

                        Announced.

SRI A. PAL
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,
MEMBER,
 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA    SRI U. DAS
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.