Tripura

StateCommission

A/37/2016

Dr. Debdas Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Mr. A.L Saha, Mr. K.Nandi, Miss. S.Datta

26 Dec 2016

ORDER

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION, TRIPURA

 

PRESENT

 

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE U.B. Saha,

PRESIDENT,

STATE COMMISSION

 

MRS. SOBHANADATTA,

MEMBER,

STATE COMMISSION.

 

MR. NARAYAN CH. SHARMA,

MEMBER,

STATE COMMISSION.

 

 

APPEAL CASE No.A/37/2016

 

 

1. Dr. Debdas Singh,

S/o Sudhir Lal Singh,

Nandan Nagar Road, 79 Tilla,

P.O. Kunjaban, P.S. G.B. Out Post,

District - West Tripura.

 

                                                  ….    ….    ….    ….    Appellant/Petitioner

 

                                                           

 

Vs

 

 

1. The Chief Manger,

Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd.,

79 Tila, Agartala, Tripura.

 

2. The Senior Manager,

Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd.,

Electrical Sub-Division-V, G.B. 79 Tilla,

Agartla, Tripura.

 

 

….    ….    ….    ….   Respondents/Opposite Parties.

 

 

For the Appellant             :         Mr. Amrit Lal Saha, Adv.

For the Respondents        :         Ms. Rajashree Purakayastha, Adv.

Date of hearing                 :         19.12.2016.

Date of delivery of Judgment:    26.12.2016

 

J U D G M E N T [O R A L]

 

 

U.B. Saha,J,

The present appeal is filed by the appellant, Dr. Debdas Singh of Nandan Nagar Road, 79 Tilla, Agartala (hereinafter referred to as petitioner), against the Judgment dated 10.08.2016 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, West Tripura, Agartala (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Case No.CC-19/2016 whereby and whereunder the Ld. District Forum disposed of the complaint petition with direction to the respondents (hereinafter referred to as opposite parties) for relaxation, reducing the consumption bill charge of the petitioner to the extent of Rs.2000/- as rebate and recovering the rest amount by installments and restore the electricity connection, if disconnected.

2. Heard Mr. A. L. Saha, Ld. Counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard the petitioner in person and Ms. R. Purakayastha, Ld. Counsel appearing for the opposite party nos.1& 2.
3. Few facts needed to be discussed are as follows:-

Petitioner Dr. Debdas Singh filed a complaint petition under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the Ld. District Forum alleging that on 05.08.2014, some officials of the Electrical Department came to his house to change the meter which was in good condition and at that time, the meter reading was shown 4734, which differed from the bill of Rs.21,982/-. According to the petitioner, the Electrical Department had taken excess money from him for the last few years for which he had contacted with the Electrical Department, but no action has been taken by the opposite parties and ultimately, he submitted an application on 18.03.2015 seeking reimbursement of the excess payment made by him. In response to the aforesaid application of the petitioner, the Sr. Manager, Revenue, TSECL provided him the details of unit consumed and requested him for payment of outstanding bills. The petitioner, accordingly, informed the Manager, TSECL that no arrears were pending. There was wrong in the meter reading and billing due to fault of the Electrical Department. Meter was changed 2 to 3 times covering 11 years, but actual meter reading was not taken. Narrating the aforesaid facts in its petition, the petitioner claimed redress before the Ld. District Forum.

4. The opposite parties filed a written statement denying the claim of the petitioner. In their written statement, the opposite parties admitted the facts that on 05.08.2014, the Sr. Manager of the GB Electrical Sub-Division along with other staff visited the house of the petitioner with an intent to assess the load and for changing the old electromagnetic meter and for installing a digital meter in place of the former, as per general instructions of the concerned authority and accordingly, the Sr. Manager, TSECL, the opposite party no.2 had verified the load and replaced the meter and took signature of the petitioner in the form prescribed for meter change. In the written statement, it is also stated that the monthly average consumption of the petitioner was 250 units in 133 months, total 33250 units. As per bill, total unit consumption was 31981 units by earlier energy meter. It also stated that the opposite parties took bill as per unit consumption by the complainant. Old meter was changed. There was no deficiency of service of the opposite parties as claimed by the petitioner. Thus, the claim of the petitioner is liable to be dismissed.
5. The petitioner Dr. Debdas Singh produced the meter changing record, copy of the bills and also adduced his evidence. In his evidence, he stated that billing was done not against his old meter, but from another fake meter. He has also stated that the energy consumption was shown high and as a result, he had to pay the consumption price for more unit though he did not consume the electricity as such in his house. The new meter was installed on 05.08.2014 and thereafter he had paid the consumption charge every month and he had no complaint against the subsequent bill.
6. The opposite parties produced the statement on affidavit of Smt. Ruma Mitra, Sr. Manager, GB, Electrical Sub-Division, TSECL and also produced the detailed bills regarding consumption of the electricity for the period from 2004 to 2013 and 2013 to 2015 of outstanding bill records and the notice (Exhibit-A).
7. On the basis of the pleadings and evidence on record, the Ld. District Forum noted, inter alia, that 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 and the petitioner produced no such bill to compare with the bills in question to determine that false billing was done. The petitioner presumed that bill was given against another meter not his meter. But such presumption of the petitioner is not supported by any evidence. He has produced neither the consumer book nor the previous bill before the Forum to detect his original meter number, which is not compared with the number given.
8. The Ld. District Forum even after scrutiny of evidence on record did not find any evidence to support the claim of the petitioner, but as the opposite parties certainly detected that the consumption bill was not correctly done for a long period and a big amount was claimed from the petitioner, the Ld. District Forum directed the opposite parties for relaxation, reduce the consumption bill charge to the extent of Rs.2000/- as rebate and to recover the rest amount by installments and restore electricity connection, if disconnected.
9. Mr. A.L. Saha, Ld. Counsel submits that the actual meter number of the petitioner was 072793, not the meter No.683882 from which the opposite parties calculated the meter reading and prepared their bills. He further submits that the opposite parties failed to produce any document regarding the installation of the aforesaid meter No.683882.
10. Ms. R. Purakayastha, Ld. Counsel appeared for the opposite parties contended that the petitioner did not raise any objection regarding his old meter being No.683882 till he received the letter dated 03.11.2015. She further submits that from the document relating to meter changing record, it would be evident that his earlier meter was 683882. She also contends that the petitioner had connected load 1.62 k.w. and his average consumption is 250 units per month as per earlier and present energy meter reading and according to the record, his connection was made on 17.08.2003 and from time to time, the meter was changed. 
11. We have gone through the contention made in the complaint petition as well as in the written statement and evidence on records and also the exhibited documents. The petitioner in his evidence nowhere stated that the meter No.683882 was not installed at any point of time, rather his case was that the said meter was a fake meter. It also appears from the record that the petitioner neither produced his consumer book nor produced any other document to show that the billing was wrong by the opposite parties. In absence of consumer book and copy of previous bills, we are unable to detect his original number of meter. On the other hand, the opposite parties have produced all the records relating to bills raised against consumption. Mere on presumption of the petitioner that the bill was given against a fake meter not from his meter, it would not be proper on our part to come to a conclusion that billing was done on the basis of reading in the fake meter.
12. According to us, the Ld. District Forum rightly decided the issue involved in the complaint case. It is not necessary on our part to interfere with the decision of the Ld. District Forum and hence, we are not interfering with the decision of the Ld. District Forum.
13. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit. No order as to costs.

Send down the records to the Ld. District Forum, West Tripura, Agartala.

 

 

 

MEMBER State Commission Tripura

MEMBER State Commission Tripura

PRESIDENT State Commission Tripura