Sri Basudeb Das filed a consumer case on 29 May 2012 against The Station Manager, Balichak (WBSEDCL) in the Paschim Midnapore Consumer Court. The case no is CC/33/2012 and the judgment uploaded on 10 Nov 2017.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.
Complaint case No. 33/2012
BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT : Mr. K. S. Samajder.
MEMBER : Mrs. Debi Sengupta.
MEMBER : Mr. Kapot Chattopadhyay.
Sri Basudeb Das Adhikari, S/o-Let Kalipada Das Adhikari, Vill-Chaksulpan, P.O.-Jhajia,
P.S.-Debra, Dist-Paschim Medinipur………Complainant.
Vs.
The Station Manager, Balichak (WBSEDCL), Gr. Electric Supply Office, P.O.-Balichak, Dist-Paschim Medinipur.………………Op.
Order No.04 Dated:-29/05/12
The Complainant files hazira. The Op takes no step and he is found on absent on repeated calls. Today is fixed for hearing the case ex parte. So, the case is taken up for ex parte hearing. Hd. The Ld. Lawyer for the complainant. Complainant files affidavit in chief and also some documents as per firisti. The complainant is examined as PW-1. He tenders the affidavit in chief and also the bills for the period from January 2011 to April 2012 in respect of his Mini Deep Tubewall. Those bills are collectively marked as Exhibit 2. The copy of the letter by which the complainant requested the op to replace the meter in question is marked as exhibit 1. Considered.
The case of the complainant, in a nut shell, is that he has a Mini Deep Tubewall being run by electric connection. The Mini Deep Tubewall is in operation since 1003. The complainant was all along paying the electric bill in respect of the Mini Deep Tubewall but the bill for the month of January and February 2011 being excessive, on 14/3/2011, the complainant requested the Op to change the meter but to no effect. As a result, the bill went on increasing month by month. According to the complainant the bills for the month of February and March was inconsistent with the bills for previous months. The complainant is sure that the meter has
Contd…….P/2
2
become defective otherwise; the electric bill for the months of February and March would not have been so high.
Hence, the complainant has prayed for correction of the bill and change of the defective meter.
The complainant as PW-1 and in his affidavit in chief, as supported and corroborated the case has made out for the petition of complaint. He has stated about the excessive amount as shown in the bills for the month of February and March 2012 from the previous bills (exhibit 2) we find that the bills for the previous month in respect of the meter in question was much less. I find no consistency in the previous bill as well as the bills for the present two months that is February and March 2012. Certainly, there has been a discrepancy/defect in the meter otherwise there would not have been such bill variation in the bills.
Upon consideration of the given facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence and other relief materials on record I filed that the complainant is entitled to get the relief as sought for.
Hence
Ordered
That the case be allowed ex parte. The Op is hereby directed to inspect and take corrective measures including repair and replacement, if required, in respect of the meter of the complainant relating to consumer No.SO220350 and also to make necessary correction in the bills for the month of February and March 2012. Such exercise is to be completed by the positively within three weeks from this date. Let a copy of this order be supplied to the complainant free of cost.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
Member Member President
District Forum
Paschim Medinipur.
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.