Tripura

West Tripura

CC/34/2015

Sri Ashok Deb. - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Self

30 Dec 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

CASE NO:  CC-  34 of 2015

Ashok Deb,
S/O- Late Arunoday Deb,
Shalbagan, P.S. Airport, 
District- West Tripura.        .............Complainant.
    
         ______VERSUS______

1. The Managing Director,
Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd.,
Agartala, Budhjung Chowmuhani,
Opp. Bhutaria, Agartala, 
Tripura West.

2. The Senior Manager, 
Durjoynagar Electric Sub-Division, 
Nutannagar, Agartala, P.O. Airport,
Tripura West.               .........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.

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

 

C O U N S E L

For the Complainant    : Complainant in person.
                  
                                                         
For the Opposite Party    : Miss Rajashree Purkayastha,
                  Advocate.

    

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:  30.12.15

J U D G M E N T

        This case U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,  arises on the complaint of Ashok Deb.

2.        The fact of the case in short is that the complainant being the electric consumer of Tripura State Electricity Board paid all the dues on 12.08.12 and restored the electricity connection in his residence. There was defect in the old electric meter and he prayed for change of the meter. The meter was not functioning.  Opposite party, Senior Manager also  did not give bill for consumption of electricity and on 12th March, 2015 disconnected the electricity connection. Complainant is a pensioner and physically disabled person. He was in most trouble so, he filed this prayer for restoration of electric connection and also compensation for his harassment and inconvenience. 

3.        Opposite Party No.1, Senior Manager and Managing Director, Tripura State Electricity Board appeared and filed written statement. & denied the claim. He stated that petitioner is not at all a consumer, did not pay service connection estimated amount. He had taken electricity line unauthorizedly. Service connection of the complainant was permanently disconnected. So, his data was not migrated in the new system.         
4.        On the basis of rival contention as raised by both the parties following points cropped up for determination;
        (i) Whether petitioner was a consumer of electricity and suffered due to disconnection of the electricity in his residence? 
        (ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get restoration of electricity and compensation as prayed for?
    
5.        Petitioner side, Ashok Deb produced original Money Receipt, Electrical bills of different period, Advocate's Notice given by him and also one witness i.e., petitioner Ashok Deb himself  marked Exhibited- 1 Series. 
        
6.        Opposite party produced the Call Register, Assessment of Load Verification, Letter dated 12.03.15, Estimate for Service Connection, Exhibited and marked A, B, C & D. 
    
7.        Opposite party also examined one witness i.e., Debabrata Laskar. Examined and cross examined.

8.        On the basis of all the evidence we shall determine the above noted points.
    
9.        We have gone through the original money receipt and electrical bill paid by Ashok Deb. From  perusal of Exhibit- 1 Series, bills and bill register as produced by the O.P. it is clear that petitioner Ashok Deb was a consumer of electricity. He paid the electricity bill for different period. From Exhibit- 1 Series it is found that he paid Rs.150/- reconnection charge on 26th April, 2012. He also paid electricity bill of Rs.1186/- on the same date. Other bills of different dates shows the deposits of different amount for consumption of electricity. So, he was a consumer. 
        
10.        Opposite parties in the written statement stated that service connection was temporarily disconnected due to outstanding energy bill from 2005 to 2008. But from the perusal of the payment vouchers it appears that outstanding bill was paid from 2006-2007-2008 and restoration of electricity connection charge was paid. In para-5 of the written statement it is stated that complainant was found to enjoy power connection unauthorizedly He failed to show any paper related to the service connection. Again it is stated that as per system normal service connection is estimated to Rs.1471/-. Opposite party also produced call register assessment of load verification, estimate for service connection(Exhibit-D). As per Exhibit- D issued on 25.10.14 Rs.1471/- was shown as estimate charge. As per Exhibit C, letter dated 12.03.15 the service connection was disconnected. It is written that unauthorized service connection is disconnected on 12.03.15. From the perusal of documents as produced by complainant and opposite party and also assertion made by both the parties it is transpired that the dispute between the parties was over the payment of estimate for new service connection. Rs.1471/- was charged for new service connection but the petitioner is not a new consumer and he had a service connection earlier and his service connection was temporarily disconnected. He paid Rs.150/- vide Exhibit- 1 Series on 26th April, 2012. His plea is that on payment of that amount his service connection was restored. But bill not given by opposite party. He prayed for change the meter but meter also not changed. Admittedly, he did not pay electricity consumption charge from 26th April 2012 onwards. Senior Manager on the other hand contends that service connection was not restored as estimated amount not given but it is not explained why restoration  charge of Rs.150/- was taken from the consumer by the opposite party. This documents of payment confirmed that electricity supply line was restored. May be it is not recorded. In the written statement also the same fact is reflected in para- 7 where it is stated that Durjoynagar Sub-division was updated to SAP system from EBS system. So, service connection of the complainant was permanently disconnected and data was not migrated to new system. For this technical development a consumer was not responsible. Consumer was also not aware about it. His connection was temporarily disconnected and restoration charge of Rs.150/- was rightly taken. For this technical change of system he is not under obligation to pay Rs.1471/- considering  the same as new connection. Therefore, the contention of O.P. is wrong. The petitioner was not unauthorisedly consuming electricity as he paid the restoration charge of the old electricity connection. Therefore disconnection on 12.03.15 was not proper as it was not unauthorized consumption of electricity. The consumer was not at fault for non-payment as O.P. failed to give the bill for consumption after 26th April, 2012. From 26.04.12 to 12.03.15 the petitioner authorisedly consumed electricity and he is to pay average charge for consumption during  this period. The defective meter is to be replaced by new meter by the O.P. and electricity connection should be restored. We consider that as restoration charge was taken by the O.P.  so, O.P. definitely restored the connection after clearance of consumed bill from 2006 to 2008 and disconnection from 12.03.15 was illegal and connection should be restored immediately after receiving the consumed bill from 24th April 2012 to 12th March 2015. Petitioner is to pay the consumption bill on average rate as fixed by electricity department on the basis of past consumption and install new meter. O.P. did not give proper service and caused sufferings to the petitioner by dis-connection on 12.03.15. Petitioner had to live without electricity from 12.03.15 for about 9 months. For this harassment and sufferings for the deficiency of service of the O.P. we consider that the petitioner is entitled to get compensation. 

11.        Therefore, we direct the O.P. to pay compensation to the petitioner amounting to Rs.10,000/-. Petitioner is to pay outstanding electricity bill form 26.04.12 to 12.03.15 and we direct to restore electricity  on payment of the billed amount on average basis. No cost is given to the petitioner in this case. Supply copy to the complainant and the opposite parties.    
             
12.                  A N N O U N C E D

 

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

 

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