Tripura

West Tripura

CC/13/97

Sri Sushant Bhowmik - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager Director Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd. And Others - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. K.Deb

22 May 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

    
CASE NO:  CC- 97 of 2013

 

Sushanta Bhowmik,
S/O- Sri S.C. Bhowmik,
Border Gol Chakkar,
Agartala, West Tripura.         ............Complainant.

         ______VERSUS______

1. Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd.
Represented by its Chairman Cum Managing Director,
Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd.
Bidyut Bhavan,
Agartala, West Tripura.

2. Senior Manager,
Electrical Subdivision No-IV(IGM Hospital),
Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd.,
Agartala, West Tripura.        .........Opposite parties.
    

                    __________PRESENT__________

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

SMT. B. BHATTACHARYA,
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         : Mr. Kushal Deb,
                  Advocate.
                           
For the Opposite parties    : Mr. Pradip Chakraborty, 
                   Advocate.                  

 

        JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON : - 22.05.15

 

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 Sushanta Bhowmik of Border Gol Chakkar, Agartala, West Tripura against the O.Ps, namely Tripura State Electricity Corporation ltd. represented by its Chairman cum Managing Director, Agartala, West Tripura and another over a consumer dispute alleging negligence and deficiency in 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, the Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd. He has a commercial electricity connection in his building situated at RMS Chowmuhani, Agartala with a consumer ID No- 2014040453958-11803 having meter no- TSEC 0610. He has been regularly paying the electricity bill raised by the service provider, Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd. from time to time without any default. The meter so installed therein remained out of order from November, 2012 to July, 2013. He brought the said fact to the notice of the O.P. No.2, Senior Manager, Electrical Subdivision No-IV (IGM Hospital) in time. In response to his repeated persuasions, the O.P. No.2 replaced the defective meter by a new one on 07.08.13 recording meter reading as 1 unit. But to his utter surprise he received the electricity bill dated 17.08.13 for the period from 15.07.13 to 11.08.13 for an amount of Rs.2,90,928/- for consumption of 43285 units though the actual electricity consumed was 1322 units. There is no explanation in the bill as to why 43285 units were billed for against actual consumption of 1322 units. Further, on 16.09.13 the complainant received another electricity bill for an amount of Rs.2,51,160/- for consumption of 43319 units though in the said bill the actual unit consumed was shown as 'Nil'. On the same date i.e., on 16.09.13 another bill was raised for the period from 11.08.13 to 15.09.13 for an amount of Rs.19,622/- for consumption of 2572 units. It is stated that at the relevant time the first floor of the building was sold out to one Piyush Pansari where the showroom of Raymond Pvt. Ltd.  is presently housed. Previously the entire building had a common electricity line in the name of the complainant. Subsequently separate electricity connection was given in the name of Raymond Pvt. Ltd. and separate electricity bill was raised in its name on 17.10.13. Having received the electricity bills dated 17.08.13 and 16.09.13, the complainant immediately drew attention of the O.P. No.2 verbally followed by a written representation against raising of bills for such an abnormal high amount. He even personally met the O.P. No.2 but his objection remained unattended. It is alleged that the electricity bill dated 17.08.13 for Rs.2,90,928/- and the bill dated 16.09.13 for Rs. 2,51,160/- raised by the O.P. No.2 did not reflect the true picture of consumption of energy. According to the complainant, the conduct of the O.Ps constitutes negligence and deficiency in service. Hence, this complaint.

3.        Upon receipt of the notices the O.Ps entered  appearance through their engaged counsel and the complaint was contested by them by filing written objection disputing all the averments made by the complainant in his complaint. It is denied that they were negligent and deficient in any manner what so ever. 

4.        In support of the case, one Sri Sandip Chanda, the constituted attorney of the complainant, has examined himself as P.W. 1 and has proved and exhibited the following documents:-
    Exhibit1 – Meter changing record dated 07.08.13,
Exhibit 2- Detailed electricity bills for the period from 13th  December, 2011 to 14th June 2012,
Exhibit 3 Series – Notices dated 07.10.13 and 13.11.13,
Exhibit 4 Series- Bills from March, 2012 to November, 2013. 
Exhibit 5 Series- Payment receipts from January, 2012 to June, 2012,
Exhibit 6- Receipt dated 27.02.14,
Exhibit 7- Receipt of reconnection charge,
Exhibit 8-  Bill dated 14.02.14,
Exhibit 9- Receipts dated 28.04.14,
Exhibit 10 Series- Bills dated 11.04.14, 14.03.14, and 12.05.14,
Exhibit 11- Letter dated 25.02.14,
Exhibit 12- Power of Attorney.

5.        Inspite of giving sufficient opportunities to the O.P. side, they failed to lead any evidence either oral or documentary in support of their case.
    FINDINGS:
6.        The points that would arise for consideration in the this proceeding are:
        (i) Whether the disputed electricity bills dated 17.08.13  for the period from 15.07.13 to 11.08.16 for Rs.2,90,928/- and the bill dated 16.09.13 for the period from 11.08.13 to 15.09.13 for Rs.2,91,160/- were defective or suffered from any ambiguity;.
        (ii) Whether the O.Ps were negligent and deficient in rendering service;
            
7.        We have already heard arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Also perused the pleadings, documents on record, the evidence adduced on behalf of  the complainant and memoranda of written arguments submitted by both the parties meticulously.

It is the first allegation of the complainant that after consistent persuasions for 11 months the defective meter of his building was replaced by a new one on 07.08.13 recording meter reading as 1 unit. But in the electricity bill dated 17.08.13 for the billing period from 15.07.13 to 11.08.13 the amount was charged as Rs.2,90,928/- for consumption of 43285 units against actual consumption of 1322 units.

        The other allegation of the complainant is that on 16.09.13 2 electricity bills – one for Rs.2,91,160/- and another for Rs.19,622/- were raised by the O.P. No.2 for the same period for consumption of similar number of units though by the time the first floor of the building was sold out to another person and a separate electric connection with meter was installed therein and first separate electricity bill dated 17.10.13 was drawn in the name of new owner. 

9.        We have examined the 3 disputed electricity bills dated 17.08.13 for the period from 15.07.13 to 19.08.13 and the two bills dated 16.09.13 for the same period from 11.08.13 to 15.09.13.

10.        As regards the first disputed bill dated 17.08.13, it is found that the O.P. No.2 charged Rs.2,90,928/- for consumption of 43285 units though the complainant actually consumed 1322 units. Normally the electricity bill would have been raised for the units actually consumed by the consumer. We have not been able to appreciate as to why the O.P. No.2 billed for 43285 units though the complainant appears to have actually consumed 1322 units. Certainly the consumer has the right to know the details of the bill presented to him. The O.Ps, in their written objection as well as in the memorandum of written argument, failed to explain this ambiguity. In fact, the O.Ps did not utter a single word to controvert the allegations made by the complainant with regard to the disputed bills except making some evasive denial. In their pleading(W/O), they could have elaborately explained on what basis, tin the bill dated 17.08.13, 43285 units were billed for against actual consumption of 1322 units. The O.P side has not led any evidence in rebuttal. Until contrary is proved, we have to rely upon the evidence adduced on behalf of the complainant. 

11.         It appears that the meter installed in the premises of the complainant remained stopped for 9 months for the period from November, 2012 to July, 2013 and average electricity bill was raised from time to time. Presuming that the disputed bill dated 17.08.13 was drawn for consumption of 43285 against the actual consumption of 1322 units after adjustment of the units already paid by the complainant on provisional basis for 9 months when the meter was stopped, in that event also the bill ought to have been prepared showing the current meter reading with effect from 07.08.13 from the date of replacement of the meter and the outstanding bill for the units consumed minus the amounts already paid by the complainant previously so that he can understand the whole things at a glance. As per rule, when the meter is not recording or found to be stuck, in that situation the consumption shall then be billed on provisional basis on average consumption of last 3 billing cycles for a period between the date of last reading and the date of replacement/ repair of the stuck meter. 

So far as the two disputed bills dated 16.09.13 for the same period from 11.08.13 to 15.09.13 are concerned, it is seen that previously the entire building of the complainant was having a common electric connection with a single meter. Subsequently one floor of the building was sold out to another person and a separate electric line with meter was given therein 17.08.13 and a separate electricity bill was prepared on 17.10.13 in the name of new land lord. It appears that in the first bill dated 16.09.13, Rs.2,91,160/- was charged for 43319 units showing actual consumption of unis as 'Nil'. For the same period another bill dated 16.09.13 was drawn for Rs.19,622/- for consumption of 2572 units. The subsequent bill dated 16.09.13 does not appear to be a supplementary bill of the earlier one. Learned counsel for the O.Ps even failed to satisfactorily answer queries that were asked by us as to how two separate electricity bills for the same period showing consumption of different units were drawn. It appears that the first bill dated 16.09.13 was prepared on the basis of presumption recording the unit consumed as 'Nil' stating in the bill that the door was closed. However, the second bill dated 16.09.13 was drawn for the same period basing on the actual meter reading. Since the second bill dated 16.09.13 with full details does not appear to be a supplementary bill of the previous one, it has to be acted upon and the earlier one is to be cancelled.

13.        In view of the discussion made above, we have no doubt in our minds that the disputed bills dated 17.08.13 and 16.09.13 suffer from ambiguity and hence they are liable to be cancelled/ modified. It is needless to say that the conduct of the O.Ps very much attracts negligence and deficiency in service.
    
14.        In the result, therefore, the complaint u/s 12 of the Act filed by the complainant is allowed on contest. The O.P. No.2, Senior Manager, Electrical Subdivision-IV (IGM Hospital) is directed to cancel/ modify the disputed bill dated 17.08.13 for the month of August, 2013 and then will prepare a new bill for the period when the meter remained closed calculating on the basis of average consumption of last 3 billing cycles for the period between the date of last reading and the date of replacement of the defective meter by a new one showing deduction of the amount already paid by the complainant for the period the meter remained stopped. The O.P. No. 2 is further directed to cancel the first electricity bill dated 16.09.13 by which an amount of Rs.2,91,160/- was charged and will act upon the second bill dated 16.09.13 billed for Rs.19,622/- towards consumption of 1322 units. This apart, the O.P. No.2 will pay Rs.4,000/-(Four thousand) to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment together with Rs.2,000/-(Two thousand) as costs of litigation. The O.P. No.2 is to complete the entire process within one month of the receipt of copy of judgment. The complainant shall have to deposit the entire amount of the bills as indicated above at a time to the office of the O.P. No.2 within 15 days of the receipt of new bill, failing which the  O.P. No.2 will have the liberty to impose penalty on the amount billed for as per rule.        

15.                  A N N O U N C E D

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

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