West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/96/2012

Gokul Chandra Sahoo - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Station Manager, Balichak Group Electric Supply Office - Opp.Party(s)

28 Feb 2014

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 Complaint case No.96/2012                                                         Date of disposal: 28/02/2014                               

 BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT :  Mr. Sujit Kumar Das.

                                                      MEMBER : 

                                                      MEMBER :  Mr. Kapot Chattopadhyay.

  

    For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff : Mr. T. Adhya Advocate.

    For the Defendant/O.P.S.                           : Mrs. D. D. Mahapatra, Advocate.

          

Gokul Chandra Sahoo, S/o Late Bibhuti Bhusan Sahoo, resident of Debra Bazaar, P.O.  Debra Bazaar, P.S.  Debra, Dist.- Paschim Medinipur. ……………Complainant.

                                                          Vs.

The Station Manager, Balichak Group Electric Supply Office, West Bengal state Electricity Distribution Company Ltd., P.O. Balichak, P.S. Debra, Dist.- Paschim Medinipur, Pin-721124………………….Op.                                                   

                

                  The case of the complainant Sri Gokul Chandra Sahoo, in short, is that he is a bona fide customer to the W.B.S.E.D.C.L. He has detected that his electric meter was not working in good order in the year 2009.  The matter was reported to the op for supply of new meter.  But no action was taken by them.  On the other hand the complainant received average bill and paid the same till April 2012.  After that he received a bill dated 23/5/12 showing 888 units for three months claiming rs.3375/-.Whereas, previous bill for three months was against Rs.3375/-. On 29/5/12 the complainant went to their office for rectification of the bill dated 23/5/12.  It is alleged that the Op asked to the complainant to pay the bill in default supply of electricity to the complainant will be disconnected.  Being aggrieved by such threat, a notice was served upon the Op from the end of the complainant. Subsequently, on 4/7/12 a new meter replacing the previous one has been installed by the Op.  Thereafter, again electric bill dated 23/8/12 for the period from 4/7/12 to 30/7/12 claiming rs.6717 against average unit of 888 was received by the complainant.  This bill was also requested for rectification

              The Op W.B.S..E.D.C.L.. contested the case by filing written statement challenging that the case is not maintainable in law having no cause of action.  The complainant is a commercial consumer.  While inspection on 14/11/11 it was found that the shop of the complainant was closed and thereby reading could not be collected and as such average bill was prepared showing the                                                                                                                                  

                                                                                                                                                                                    Contd…………P/2

 

                                                                                                                          - ( 2 ) -

period November 2011 to January 2012 claiming 626 units which was paid by the complainant.  For subsequent period, that is, February 2012 to July 12 claiming total 888 units by bill dated 23/5/12.  So there was no cause of action to raise objection by the complainant.  In fact, the bills were generated on average basis of total 1514 units for the period from November 2011 to July 12 covering the period when the meter was allegedly not-functioning. On 29/6/12, technical personnel of the Op made an inspection and detected that the complainant without permission that the consumer extended his connected load upto 2.77 K.W. unauthorisely without prior permission or approval from this opposite parties.  The original contractual connected load is only 08 K.m.  The consumer is depriving this opposite party from its real dues.  The said Act is illegal one.  The shop meter of consumer has already installment on 4/7/12.   The bill dt.23/5/12 is reasonable genuine and payable and it has been prepared following the guide line of W.B.S.E.D.C.L.  So the case should be dismissed.

Upon the case of both parties the following issues are framed.

Issues:

1. Whether the case is maintainable in its present form?
2. Whether the complainant has any cause of action for presentation of this petition of complaint.
3. Whether the complainant is entitled for getting relief as prayed for?

 

Decision with reasons

Issue Nos.1 to 3:

         All the issues are taken up together for discussion as those are interlinked each other for the purpose of arriving at a correct decision in the dispute.

     Ld. Advocate for the complainant made his argument that meter has already been replaced with the defective one but the bills are not rectified.  The complainant has paid all bona fide bills prior to the disputed bill dated 23/5/12.  On proper scrutiny of the earlier paid up bills, it is clear that the said bill dated 23/5/12 has been issued by the Op for collection of higher revenues showing excessive units which is baseless.  Thus, the complainant should get relief by virtue of previous paid of bills

          Ld. Advocate for the Op on the other hand made his reply that the units claimed in all previous bills are going to justify the actual units consumed by the complainant during the period of alleged meter which was changed with a new meter on request of the complainant.

                                                                                                                                                                                       Contd………..P/3

 

                                                                                                       - ( 3 ) -

              Thus, steps taken by the Op is very much bona fide in order to remove doubt from the mind of the complainant. In this connection, it has been submitted by the Ld. Advocate that there is no occasion for holding that the Ops are liable for deficiency of service.

             The case of the parties and their respective documentary evidence are carefully considered. It appears there is no further dispute as regard to replacement of the alleged not-functioning of the defective meter installed in the premises of the complainant.  Only question of inflated bills is to be considered for the purpose of arriving at a correct decision.  In this subject, the entire documents of both previous paid up bills and the disputed one alongwith meter card are taken into account for meticulous scrutiny.  It appears paid up bill for 626 units and the disputed bills dated 23/5/12 for 888 units which exposes excess of 172 units claimed in the bill dated 23/5/12. Admittedly the old meter replaced on 4/7/12 and till that date the units consumed should be assessed with the unit reading of new meter installed in that old one.  Thus, previous period in question and the period under new meter from 4/7/12 to 31/7/12 are the vital point of subject for average calculation.  In view of the discussion and assessment, there is no question of excess amount of units in the disputed bill dated 23/5/12

         Under the fact and circumstances as discussed hereinabove, we are in the opinion that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Op and as such it is held and decided that the complainant has no cause of action that raising the dispute against the Op.  Thus, the issues are held against the complainant as a result that the case fails.       

             Hence

                            It is ordered

                                                that the case be and the same is dismissed on contest without cost .             

Dic. & Corrected by me.  

        

         President                                             Member                                                President

                                                                                                                              District Forum

                                                                                                                         Paschim Medinipur.