West Bengal

Dakshin Dinajpur

CC/10/35

Sri Manmatha Ghosh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The D.E & Divisional Manager - Opp.Party(s)

Manosij Ghosh

30 Aug 2011

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum

Dakshin Dinajpur, W. Bengal

(Old Sub-Jail Municipal Market Complex, 2^nd Floor, Balurghat Dakshin Dinajpur Pin - 733101)

Telefax: (03522)-270013

Present

Sri S. K. Ghosh - President-in-Charge

Miss. Swapna Saha - Member

Consumer Complaint No. 35/2010

Sri Manmatha Ghosh.

S/o Lt. Manindranath Ghosh

Vill.: Biswaspara, P.O. & P.S.: Balurghat,

Dist. Dakshin Dinajpur.……………………………Complainant

V-E-R-S-U-S

1. The D. E. & Divisional Manager.

Dakshin Dinajpur(D) Division,

West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd.

P.O. & P.S. Balurghat.

Dist-Dakshin Dinajpur.

2. The Assistant Manager(P & A)

Dakshin Dinajpur (D) Division,

West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd.

P.O. & P.S. Balurghat.

Dist-Dakshin Dinajpur.

3. The A. E. & Station Manager,

Balurghat Group Electric Supply,

West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd.

P.O. & P.S. Balurghat.

Dist. Dakshin Dinajpur. …………………Opposite Parties

For the complainant ……………… - Sri Sumit Bhowmik, Ld. Adv.

For the OPs …………………… - Sri Sudip Chatterjee, Ld. Adv.

Date of Filing : 29.07.2010

Date of Disposal : 30.08.2011

Judgement & Order dt. 30.8.2011

Instant CC case 35/2010 bases upon a complaint u/s 12 CP Act, brought by the complainant Mr. Manmatha Ghosh on 29.07.2010 against the Assistant Engineer, Balurghat Group Electricity Supply of the W.B.S.E.D.C.L. alleging deficiency in service.

Shorn of details complainant’s case as made out in the said complaint is that he is a bonafide consumer under the W.B.S.E.D.C.L., having Consumer Connection No. 3642 (ii)D and Consumer No. C010582 and Electric Meter No. HH 775955. The complainant prayed the bills for his consumer consumption regularly as per the bills sent by the department from time to time in respect of the said electric connection.

During this continuance the complainant in the month of June,2006 receipt of the bill dt. 5.6.2006 noticed that the bills were coming excessive although the complainant consumed less electricity then the last quarter and one of the room of the complainant was lying vacant and for that reason the complainant on 13.6.2006 a written application before the Assistant Engineer prayed for replacement of the meter and rectification of the bills.

After receiving the application the OP come to the premises of the complainant and see all things and orally requested to the complainant to pay the average bill till the dispute of the meter.

The complainant paid the average bills till 2007 but the electricity did not take any step.

After the long period the OP came to the complainant’s premises on 25.5.2010 and installed one checked meter beside the old meter in between the period of 25.5.2010 to 19.6.2010.

There was found that there is different of the consumption of the same period in two meters and it is clear that meter is defect. The OP did not consider the complaint of the complainant nor they rectify the inflated bills nor they removed the irregularities of the defective meter nor they replace the new meter in place of the defective meter.

In the backdrop of such circumstances the complainant brought the complaint seeking a direction upon the OPs for replacement of the meter of his service connection, compensation and for rectification of the bills virtually concerning the bill month 9/07 to 7/10.

The OPs in their written version dt. 14.6.2011 stated that the complainant is a domestic consumer under Balurghat Group Electricity Supply and his Service Connection No. 3642/(ii)D Consumer No. C010582 and Meter Bill No. HH 775955 and after getting the connection he paid the bill regularly up to May,2006.

When the complainant received a bill dt. 24.5.06. he lodged a complaint on 13.6.06 that the bill dt. 24.5.06 is excessive.

The receiving the complaint the OPs’ men went to the petitioner’s house and stated to the petition that he may deposited average bill till the installation of new meter as on when available.

The OPs one checked meter was installed on 25.5.2010 for checking the old meter and it was found that the reading showed in the new meter is 163 units on 25.5.10 to 19.6.10 and old meter showed 157.9 units which is less unit showed in the old meter.

So the meter was checked and found correct.

Upon the pleadings of the sides following two points come up for determination :-

POINTS

1. Was there deficiency in service on the part of OPs?

2. Should the reliefs sought for in the complainant, be granted.

Decision with reasons

Point Nos. 1 & 2:

The Ld. Forum perused all the documents filed by the both parties including all exhibited documents.

$$$$$$$$$4

1. In the POC upon which instant C.C. case is based the complainant prayed for a direction upon the OPs for replacement of the meter of his service connection (SC) alleging that the meter turned defective, compensation and for rectification of the bill concerning the period 8/09 to 7/10.

2. Though the complainant in his POC did not make clear as to whether rectification of the bill has been sought for the bill period 8/09 to 7/10 or in the consumption period 8/09 to 7/10, from a consideration of the whole of the POC and having kept in view the copy of the OP-3’s notice dt. 14.7.10 filed by the complainant in support of his complaint it cannot be regarded in this case that, in fact, in his complaint prayed for rectification of the bill concerning of the bill month 9/08 to 7/10.

3. On 14.2.08 the OPs sent a bill claiming that the said bill was raised for comparatively small energy charges adjusting the energy consumption charges for which had been realised earlier. But later the OP started raising bill showing inflected consumption. The complainant thereafter submitted petitions on 1.10.08 and on 23.9.09 making prayers were made by him in his application dt. 13.6.06.

4. On 25.5.10 OPs installed a Test Meter in the SC wherefrom it was observed that over a spell of 25 days advance in meter reading in the test meter was 163 units while that in the existing meter was 158.3 units. Despite difference in the advance of the meter readings in the two meters, the OPs neither replace the meter of the SC nor rectify the earlier bill. Later OP-3 by notice dt. 14.7.10 informed the complainant that the meter of the SC had been found correct and asked the complainant to pay OSD (outstanding) of Rs.13,155/- respecting the period 9/08 to 7/10. The complainant then prayed to the office of the OPs for rectification of the bills claiming inter alia that the date of reading of the meter shown in the bill did not tally with the reading dates entered in the meter reading card but the OP 3 ultimately threatened to disconnect the SC in the event of non-payment of the OSD demanded by them.

5. The OPs in their written objection dt. 5.1.10 stated that in view of complainant’s allegation of inflected consumption have shown in the bill the OP raised bills on the basis of average consumption for some period and that the realization of the charges of average consumption was later adjusted in the bill for the consumption period 9/07 to 11/07. In view of complainant’s allegation of the meter becoming defective they replaced a check meter in the SC during 25.5.10 to 19.6.10 and found the existing meter of the SC remaining in order. It has further been the case of the OPs that even though it has been alleged that the reading dates shown in the bills did not tally with the reading dates shown in the yellow card, the bill for the period in disputes were actually prepared upon correct reading.

6. Contention advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the OPs, on the other hand, was that as the advance in meter reading shown in the test meter and that shown in the existing meter could be observed to be insignificant the existing meter has been viewed to have been remained in order by the OPs and so the bills concerning the period ………..based substantially in view of advance in meter reading shown in the existing meter. The complainant should ask to make payment of the entire OSD and so the prayer for an interim order warrants rejection.

7. We have gone through the materials on record in the case and have carefully taken into consideration the submissions advanced on behalf of the two sides.

8. Though it was urged in the written objection that the complaint is untenable, we are at this inter-locative stage think it proper to proceed treating that the complaint is maintainable.

9. Having kept in view the entries as the reading dates shown in the copy of the yellow card filed by the complainant as the reading dates shown in the bills concerning six quarterly bills of the period in dispute it can be regarded that all the reading dates shown in the bills concerning the disputed period do not actually tally …shown in the yellow card quarterly.

10. Admittedly in view of the complainant’s complaint of the meter becoming defectives the OPs placed a test meter along with existing meter in the service connection during a spell of 25 days from 25.5.10 to 19.6.10. The except report of the checking is not on recorded. However, the copy of the meter card wherein initial and finally reading of the two meters purported to have been regarded (filed by the complainant), go to indicate that during the said spell of 25 days advance in meter reading in the test meter was 163 units while that shown in the existing meter was found to be 157.9 units. So the advance in the existing meter was found 5.1 units less than the that of the test meter. If it be presumed that the test meter was correct, the deviation in reading shown in the existing meter can be taken to have been 3.13% (approx). Though it has been contended on behalf of OPs that the existing meter on checking was found to be correct, no provision could be brought to our notice to show that deviation of 3.13% is within the permissible amplitude of correctness, it is also fact that it should be necessary to install the checked meter in the year 2006 but the OP Electricity installed the checked meter in the year 2010. It is also causing the deficiency in service or fault on the part of OP electricity.

11. In case of meter’s remaining or suspecting to have been defective, Regulation 3.6 of the W.B.E.R.C. (ECS) Regulations, 2007 speaks of realization provisionally of energy charges on the basis of average consumption of a reasonably comparable period during which the meter could be regarded to have remained in order. But here on the materials so far on record, such comparable period of the meter remaining in order is not apparent.

12. However, from reading of the meter recorded in the copy of the meter card filed by the complainant, it appears that over about 23½ months in between 23.5.08 and 5.5.10 advance in reading was 4035 units indicating that the consumption was on an average of 171.7 units per month. So for the disputed period of 23 months consumption was likely to have been 171.7 x 23 i.e. about 3949 units.

13. So on the basis of above view it is decided that there is a deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Thus the complainant is entitled to get reliefs as against the OPs.

14. Accordingly Point Nos. 1 & 2 both are decided on the basis of above view, hence.

O R D E R E D

That the complaint u/s 12 CP Act brought by the complainant Sri Manmatha Ghosh on 29.07.2010 is virtually allowed issuing directions mentioned hereinafter.

That the CC Case No.35/2010 is allowed on contest with costs of Rs.500/-.

OP is hereby directed to replace the defective meter with one within 15 days from 5.9.2011.

OP is further directed to regenerate the bill concerning the consumption month period from 9/2008 to 7/2010 and shall adjust the amount already paid by the complainant respecting that period against the said regenerate bill and effect service thereof given the complainant at last 15 days time for making the payment of remnant time.

The complainant makes payment of the remnant amount of the regenerate bill with 15 days from the issue of fresh regenerate bill.

The OP shall not pay claim for LPSC respecting the said bill period or any part thereof.

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

Dictated & corrected

(Swapna Saha)

Member

I concur

(S.K. Ghosh)

President-in-Charge

-x-