DATE OF FILING : 26-12-2012. DATE OF S/R : 03-01-2013. DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 16-07-2013. Sri Nilmoni Adak, son of late Kishore Mohan Adak, residing at Duillya, P.C. Roy Road, near Shitala Mandir, P.O. Andul – Mouri, P.S. Sankrail, Nazirgung I.C., District –Howrah---------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT. - Versus - 1. The Station Manager, Andul Mouri CCC, West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd., Office of the S.M., P.O., Andul Mouri, Howrah – 711 302. 2. The Divisional Engineer, West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd., Howrah Division – 1, 13, Netaji Subhas Road, Howrah – 711 101. 3. The Chairman, West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd., having its head office at Bidyut Bhawan, Salt Lake City, Kolkata – 700 091. --------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES. P R E S E N T President : Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS. Member : Shri P.K. Chatterjee. Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha. F I N A L O R D E R 1. The instant case was filed by complainant U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986, as amended up to date against the o.p. nos. 1, 2 & 3, WBSEDCL Authority. alleging deficiency in service U/S 2( 1 )( g ), 2( 1 )( o ) of the C.P. Act, 1986 wherein the complainant has prayed for passing necessary direction upon the o.p. nos. 1, 2 & 3, WBSEDCL Authority from restraining to disconnect the power supply for abruptly raising the erratic electric bill against consumption of units as consumed by the other consumers caused an outstanding figure had been ventilated in the bills of the complainant though the said units had been regenerate afterwards by the O.Ps. as per request of the complainant after admitting the facts and other reliefs in the form of compensation and litigation costs against prolonged harassment and mental agony. 2. The brief facts of the complaint is that the complainant is a bonafide consumer being S.C. no. 17632 and Consumer No. D 023545 residing at his residential house at Duilya used to pay up to date bill without any default. Subsequently the complainant lodged a written complaint on 02-09-2011 before the O.P. no. 1 for malfunctioning the existing meter which eventually replaced the O.P. no. 1 by a new one on 25-11-2011 and raised the bills Rs. 251/- for the period from 7/2011 to 9/2011, Rs. 199/- 10/12 to 12/12 and subsequently received the energy bill for the months together and paid the said bills time to time on different dates. All on a sudden he noticed that the energy bill so received by him is for the consumer no. D 020848 and accordingly he noticed the irregularities before the O.P. no. 1 who ( herein O.P.no. 1 ) ratified the bill by regenerating the units through computerized system and finally raised the ratified bill for the period 09/12 to 12/12 of Rs. 95/- showing therein outstanding amount for the period 7/12 to 9/12 Rs. 1,072/- and the complainant paid the said bills ignoring the outstanding dues. Having notices surprisingly by the complainant he lodged complaint before the O.P. no. 1 on 08-11-2012 who subsequently assessed the correct consumption of units and the bill raised in corresponding bill. But in spite of repeated requests made by the complainant the O.P.no. 1 did not pay heed on it and finding no other alternative he lodged this case before the Forum praying for relief and compensation. 3. The o.p. nos. 1, 2 & 3 filed their written version contending interalia that the petition is not maintainable in law and facts and the dispute involved in the instant case is not a consumer dispute within the meaning, scope and ambit of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The O.Ps. admitted the facts by saying / quoted “To err is human”. This answering O.Ps. opined that immediately upon receipt of complaint, took step and redressed the grievances of the complainant with utmost promptitude. There is no deficiency on the part of this answering O.Ps. not any willful latches and the complainant claimed damages is absolutely baseless and untenable. The instant case is misconceived and speculative and designed to harass the O.Ps. and liable to be dismisses. 4. Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination : i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the WBSEDCL Authority, i.e., O.P. nos. 1, 2 & 3 ? ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? DECISION WITH REASONS : 5. Both the points are taken up together for consideration. It is admitted facts that the complainant received some erratic energy bill sent by the O.P. no. 1 or his representative which time to time paid by the complainant. The matter of erratic energy bill received by the consumer / complainant was beyond the scope of the notice of the complainant which subsequently paid the bills time to time on good faith In spite of the facts that the bill so received by the complainant for consumer against consumer I.D. No. D 020848 namely Sraban Kr. Das, though the energy bill sent in the name of the complainant with mentioning wrongly the consumer I.D. No. / Consumer No. D 0200848 which belongs Shri Sraban Kr. Das ( actually the complainant holding the consumer I./D. no. D 023545 ). The O.Ps. or his representative O.P. no. 1 admitted the facts sending wrong identification bill to the complainant and latter realize his mistake and admitted with the comments “To err is human”. Having realized the mistake and being persuasion in several occasion by the complainant the O.P. no. 1 thereafter rectified the bill accordingly by sending a fresh bill notings thereon outstanding dues of Rs. 1072/- which is not desirable and such act is negligent and deficient in nature which tantamount gross violation in service under the periphery of socalled deficiency in service U/S 2(1)(g) & 2(1)(o) of the C.P. Act, 1986. 6. The action on the part of the complainant for non co-operation with the representative of the O.P. during taking meter reading is not appreciated by this Forum and advised to be more cordial with the public servant to perform their job for the better / greater interest of the consumers scattering a vast area. Considering the above we concluded our considered opinion that the action of the O.P. no. 1 is deficient in nature for which deficiency in service has been established and this is a fit case, the complainant is entitled to get relief and compensation as prayed for. Points under consideration are accordingly disposed of. In the result, the complaint succeeds. Hence, O R D E R E D That the C. C. Case No. 177 of 2012 ( HDF 177 of 2012 ) be allowed on contest against o.p. no. 1, Station Manager, WBSEDCL Authority, with cost. The o.p. no. 1, Station Manager, WBSEDCL Authority, be directed to raise the ongoing correct bills to the consumer / complainant by taking spot reading at the complainant schedule premises taking into consideration that no outstanding dues is lying / recording in the next bill. The complainant is hereby directed to give free access to the meter reader to collect exact meter reading at the meter room premises failure to act the O.P. no. 1 is at liberty to take all possible measure to realize the outstanding dues including penal action. The O.P. no. 1 is further directed to pay a compensation of Rs 10,000/- for prolonged harassment and mental agony to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order. The O.P.no. 1 is also do pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as litigation cost of Rs. F2,000/- to the complainant within one month from the date of this order. The entire amount of Rs. 12,000/- ( Rs. 10,000 + Rs. 2,000 ) will be paid by the O.P. no. 1 to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order , failure of which @ 9% p.a. shall be levied on the unpaid amount till realization. The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period. Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule. DICTATED & CORRECTED BY ME. ( P. K. Chatterjee ) ( P. K. Chatterjee) Member, C.D.R.F.,Howrah. Member, C.D.R.F.,Howrah. ( Jhumki Saha ) ( T.K. Bhattacharya ) Member, C.D.R.F.,Howrah. President, C.D.R.F.,Howrah. | 
