BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER REDRESSAL FORUM
(DISTRICT FORUM)
UNOKOTI DISTRICT : KAILASHAHAR
C A S E NO. C. C. 15/4
SRI MONORANJAN DAS
Son of late Ishan Chandra Das
Vill & PO- Sonaimuri, PS- Kumarghat,
District- Unakoti ,Tripura.
…......COMPLAINANT
V E R S U S
THE SENIOR MANAGER
Tripura State Electricity Coporation Ltd.
Kumarghat Electrical Sub-Division
Kumarghat, Unakoti, Tripura.
….....OPPOSITE PARTY
P R E S E N T
SHRI J. M. MURASING
PRESIDENT
DISTRICT CONSUMER REDRESSAL FORUM
UNAKOTI DISTRICT::KAILASHAHAR
A N D
SMTI. S. DEB, MEMBER
&
SRI P. SINHA, MEMBER
C O U N S E L
For the Complainant : Shri C. Bhattacharjee, Advocate,
For the opposite party : Shri N. Dasgupta, Advocate
ORIGINAL DATE OF INSTITUTION :27/04/2015
JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON : 25/09/2019
J U D G M E N T
This is a complaint U/S 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act filed by the complainant Sri Monoranjan Das against the opposite party claiming compensation due to harassment and non-providing proper service by the OP.
2. The case of the complainant, as briefed in the complainant petition is that, the complainant is a consumer of the OP vide consumer No. 0430009203930130023208. He has been using electricity at his shop situated at Teliacherra Bazar of Sonaimuri, Unakoti District for about last 35 years as consumer of the OP, but in the first part of the year 2008 the complainant found that the billing meter machine of his shop was not functioning. Then the complainant informed the matter to the OP immediately and accordingly staffs of the OP examined the said electric meter machine and found it defective. The OP informed the complainant that his meter would be replaced but during that time as no meter machine was available in the office of the OP, the OP told that after few months his meter machine would be changed and further told that the complainant would pay the fixed charge of Rs. 285/- per month as stop meter till replacement of the defective meter by a new one. Thereafter, the complainant had been paying the bill as stop meter rate in every month regularly. Time to time the complainant requested the OP to replace the meter, but the OP did not do so. Subsequently on 29/04/2011 the son of the complainant, namely, Sri Mohit Lal Das requested the OP in writing to replace the meter, but no action and thereafter on 30/09/2013 the complainant again filed prayer to the OP for the purpose, but no action again. In that juncture the OP started to issue the bills of electricity against the said defective meter machine from 11/09/2014 at a very excessive rate. In the month of September, 2014 vide bill dated 11/09/2014 bill was raised for Rs. 1696.60/- for the period from 10/08/2014 to 08/09/2014. Receiving such an inflated bill he went to the office of the OP and informed the matter. The OP assured him to see the matter, but did not take any step, rather went on issuing the bills in the month of October, November, December, January, 2015, February, March for Rs. 1723.64/-, Rs. 1757.18/-, Rs. 1852.83/-, Rs. 2070.41, Rs. 2267/- & Rs. 1887.99/- respectively. Every month the complainant went to the office of the OP and informed him about the matter, but OP did nothing. Finally on 17/04/2015 OP informed the complainant that he was unable to rebate any amount of those bills and also unable to replace the said electrical meter machine of the complainant. In this way the OP has rendered deficiency of service towards the complainant. Under this back drop the complainant has filed the instant complaint against the OP seeking redress. It is further contended in the complaint petition that because of the activities of the OP he has suffered metal pain and agony and he has claimed compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- and also has claimed refund of the excess paid amount of Rs. 11,260.65/-.
On 22/04/2016 a petition Under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was filed by the complainant seeking amendment of the complaint. On the prayer of the learned GP the petition was sent to the OP for filing objection. As no WO was filed against the said prayer on allowing repeated chance vide order dated 24/08/2016 amendment prayer dated 22/04/2016 for inserting schedule 'A' and schedule 'B' was allowed and the complainant was asked to file amended petition and on 23/09/2016 complainant filed the amended copy of the amendment accordingly. OP also filed WO. On 08/11/2016 complainant filed a petition to file an interrogatory petition which was filed on 23/11/2016. OP did not file any answer of the interrogatory though filed objection simply and ultimately evidence was led from both the parties. In the amended petition the complainant stated that during the pendency of the case on 17/03/2016 the OP surprisingly disconnected the electric line without any information and thus the OP has once again rendered deficiency of service. Because of disconnection of the electric line the complainant could not carry on his business at night and as such, he suffered a loss of Rs. 500/- per day and the complainant be awarded compensation accordingly till the date of disconnection of the electric line.
3. On 05/08/2015 & 23/09/2016 written objections were submitted on behalf of the OP. It is stated by the OP vide his written objection dated 05/08/2015 denying that the complainant requested the OP for change of the meter as it was declared stop meter by the OP, but it is contended by the OP that the disputed bill must be paid in full under protest on due date subject to adjustment of the disputed bill. As a real fact it is submitted by the OP that the meter of the complainant was stopped from 04/07/2007 and when the meter was stopped first bill was raised for Rs. 225/- by manual reading up to August, 2014 and bill was paid by the complainant up to August, 2014. After introduction of EBS software in the year 2007 complainant got his first energy bill in running meter condition and as per EBS record meter was stopped working from July, 2007. From 29/08/2014 RSECL updated the billing system namely SAP as per TERC and IE guideline from EBS and after introduction of SAP system manual process of reading entry on the basis of EBS running meter is not permitted against stop /defective meter. Energy consumption of stop/defective meter is calculated by system itself according to the TERC/IE rules. The allegation of the complainant that no effort was taken by the OP to replace the defective meter of the complainant is not true because department already took initiative for replacing stop/defective meter through agency and as the case of the complainant is sub judice matter the OP has been waiting and as the bills of the meter of the complainant are machine generated the OP is quite handicapped in respect of giving rebate of the bill of the complainant and as such, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP. Again vide written objection dated 23/09/2016 the OP denied that they disconnected the electric line of the complainant on 17/03/2016 as there is no office order of disconnection and as such, OP has no responsibility in the matter of disconnection of electric line, if made, by any other way and for that the loss claimed by the complainant at the rate of Rs. 500/- per day for not carrying on business at night time is baseless. It is further contended by the complainant that after verification of the matter of disconnection it was found that service line of the shop of the complainant might be due to natural cause. It was also verified that no call is registered in the call book regarding non-availability of the electric power to the complainant, which is a normal practice and as such, there is no deficiency on the part of the OP and the compensation amount to the tune of Rs. 1,61,260/- as claimed by the complainant is not justified and the complainant petition be dismissed accordingly.
4. In order to substantiate the claim, complainant examined himself as PW 1. In his deposition he stated the facts as was put down in his complaint petition. During his re-examination he has exhibited the following documents :-
i. Bills of electricity issued by Senior Manager, Kumarghat dated 17/11/2013, 16/09/2013, 17/10/2013, 16/11/2013, 14/12/2013, 17/01/2014, 14/02/2014, 15/03/2014, 12/07/2014 & 12/08/2014 in 10 (Ten) sheets marked Exbt. 1/1 to 1/10.
ii. Bills of electricity issued by Senior Manager, Kumarghat dated 11/09/2014, 11/10/2014, 15/11/2014, 14/12/2014, 13/01/2015, 13/03/2013 & 14/03/2016 in 7 (seven) sheets marked Exbt. 2/12 to 2/7.
iii. Received copy of the letter dated 29/04/2011 isssued by Mohit Lal Das to OP in one Sheet marked Exbt. 3
iv. Received copy of letter dated 30/09/2013 issued by the complainant to OP marked Exbt. 4.
In cross PW 1 stated that the meter installed in his house by the Electrical Department has not been functioning for last 10/12 years. He denied that the Electrical Department visited his house for repair of the defective meter and that he did not allow them to do so.
Sri Subrata Malakar has also been examined as PW 2 from the side of the complainant and PW 2 has also in his evidence supported the factum as stated by PW 1.
During cross PW 2 admitted that there is system and provision of Electric Department regarding giving connection and disconnection of any electric line.
From the side of the OP Sri Susanta Debbarma, the Senior Manager , TSECL, Kumarghat Electrical Division has examined himself as OPW 1. He stated that the allegation of the complainant regarding billing of excessive amount is false. Practically the bill was prepared as per SAP system with which OP has no role. It is further stated by the OPW 1 that he tried to replace the meter box of the complainant and denied that the electric line of the complainant was not disconnected on 17/03/2016 and as such, prayed for dismissing the complaint.
During re-examination DW 1 has exhibited the following documents:-
(i) Duplicate bill dated 18/08/2007 (Exbt. A)
(ii) Dupllicate bill dated 06/10/2007 (Exbt. B)
(ii) Incident detailed NO. 399641 (Exbt. C)
(iv) Bill dated 11/09/2014 (Exbt. D)
(v) Agreement dated 19/03/2015 (Exbt. E)
(vi) Work order electric meter (Exbt. F)
(vii) Explanation by predecessor Senior Manager in connection with case No. CC 15/4 ( Exbt. G)
During cross examination DW 1 admitted that complainant is their commercial consumer and in the year 2008 he made complaint to their office that his commercial meter box was found defective and non functioning and accordingly it was verified and found his complaint was true and thereafter they fixed a minimum charge of his meter box at Rs. 285/- per month and it was paid accordingly by the complainant till the year 2014. He further admitted that in the year 2014 on some occasions they issued bill in favour of the complainant at the tariff rate of Rs. 1696/-, Rs. 1723/-, Rs. 1757/- & Rs. 1852. DW 1 further admitted that since the year 2015 there is no power connection in the meter box of the complainant.
5. The only question required to be adjudicated in the case at hand is whether the complainant is to pay the increased amount of the bill raised by the OP and whether there is any deficiency on the part of the OP in any way?
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION
6. DW 1 in his evidence admitted that the meter box of the complainant was found defective on verification and for that they fixed minimum charge of his meter box at Rs. 285/- per month which has been duly paid by the complainant till the year4 2014. On consultation of the incident detail submitted on behalf of the OP ( Exbt. C) it is found that for stop meter per month bill is 259 unit as estimated by SAP system. From the bill dated 11/09/2014 submitted on behalf of the OP ( Exbt. D) it is found that an amount of Rs. 2347/- has been raised taking the unit consumption as 259 unit and in the message to consumers column it is mentioned in the said bill (Exbt. D) that consumption is estimated due to meter stop. For meter stop a bill of Rs. 2347/- in comparison with the earlier fixed charge of Rs. 285/- per month is highly exorbitant. From the side of the OP nothing is placed before this Forum that by this time electric consumption rate has been revised and increased. Bill of Rs. 2347/- (Exbt. D) appears to be quite imaginary. How SAP billing system can assess the bill at such a high rate when the meter box is stopped, is a matter of strong suspicion. Some system in the machine can show such a big and inflated amount, but practically it should have been viewed by the OP that the bill was absurd. As the meter was defective, as admitted by the OP, it was the duty of the OP to cure the defect in the meter or to replace the same though complainant and his son repeatedly requested the OP both in writing and verbally to replace the meter box, but the OP did not do so. As admitted by the OP that the complainant paid the fixed amount of bill till the 2014. That means complainant is an honest consumer, otherwise he would not have pressed for replacing the defective meter box. He had genuine intention to pay the exact bill against his consumption and that is why he insisted on replacing he defective meter box. In the fact and circumstances what the OP should have done is not to prepare the bill of the complainant through SAP system, but should have allowed the complainant to pay the amount of Rs. 285/- per month as fixed by the OP till his meter box is replaced. The OP should have considered the case of the complainant as special one, but they did not do so and treated the case of the complainant as general one. However, records doe not show that complainant has paid any amount after the year 2014. On overall appreciation of the evidence and documents this Forum is of the view that the complainant should be allowed to pay his per month bill at fixed rate of Rs. 285/- per month. Accordingly, the OP shall prepare the bills of the complainant for the unpaid period basing on documents and in consultation with the complainant at the rate of Rs. 285/- per month till the date of replacement of the defective meter by a new one. The amount will be obviously a fat sum and as such, the complainant should also be allowed three consecutive installments to pay the arrears bill. From the evidence of the DW 1 it also comes out that since the year 2015 there is no power connection in the meter box of the complainant, which goes to prove that the electric connection of the complainant is disconnected by any way, As such, the OP is also directed to re-connect the electric line in the shop premises of the complainant within 7 (seven) days from today. Under the peculiar facts and circumstances the Forum does not pass order regarding compensation, as claimed by the complainant.
The issue is accordingly decided.
ORDER
7. In the result, the complaint filed by the complainant stands stands allowed partly. The OP shall prepare the bills of the complainant for the unpaid period basing on documents and in consultation with the complainant at the rate of Rs. 285/- per month till the date of replacement of the defective meter by a new one. The complainant should also be allowed three consecutive installments to pay the arrears bill . The OP is also directed to re-connect the electric line in the shop premises of the complainant within 7 (seven) days from today. However, the complainant is not entitled to any amount of compensation, as claimed by the complainant.
8. Furnish copy of this judgment to the complainant and the O.P free of cost through their respective learned counsels.
ANNOUNCED
(J. M. MURASING)
PRESIDENT
(P. SINHA) (S. DEB)
MEMBER MEMBER
