C.F. CASE No.          : CC/09/32                                                                                                         

 

COMPLAINANT             :  Subal Chandra Das

S/o Late Kanai ch. Das

Vill. Chapra,

P.O. & P.S. Kaliganj,

Dist. Nadia.

 

 

       –  Vs  – 

 

 

OPPOSITE PARTY/OP          : The Station Manager,

Debagram Gr. Electric Supply,

Nutun Bus-Stand, Debagram,

P.O. Debagram, P.S. Kaliganj,

Dist. Nadia.

 

           

PRESENT                :  SHRI DILIP KUMAR BASU              PRESIDENT

         :  KUMAR MUKHOPADHYAY          MEMBER

         :  SMT SHIBANI BHATTACHARYA       MEMBER  

 

DATE OF DELIVERY             

OF  JUDGMENT               :    25th August, 2009.

 

 

:    J U D G M E N T    :

 

The fact of the complainant's case, in a nutshell, is as follows. 

 

The complainant, Subal Ch. Das has filed this case against the OP, Station Manager, Debagram Group Electric Supply, Nutun Bus Stand, Debagram, P.S. 

Page 2 of 6

 

Kaliganj, Nadia alleging that he is a consumer under the OP vide SC No. K/STW/1-27 and Con No. S020858 and cultivates his land through the shallow machine.  Due to coil disturbance of the transformer the OP took away the transformer on 19.04.07.   And replaced on 17.12.07.   As the transformer was withdrawn by the OP, no electric connection to the shallow machine existed from 19.04.07 to 17.12.07.    Obviously, he did not consume the electricity for that period.  In spite of that the OP has sent electric bills for the above cited period which is illegal.   By filing this case the complainant has prayed for a direction upon the OP to return the bill amount from the bill April, 07 to 12/07, a direction for installation for a new meter, a direction for adjustment of the amount paid for the above cited period from the future bills, a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for mental pain and agony, cost and other relief.

 

The OP has contested this case by filing written version whereon he has denied the material averment of the petition alleging that the complainant is the consumer under him vide STW Con. No. S020858 which is unmetered and contractual annual tariff is Rs. 8800/- which is taken per month by dividing the same amount with 12.   It has further alleged that this transformer burnt on 29.04.07.  The bill on 04/07 was sent to the complainant on the basis of the consumption in March/07.  Thereafter, from 05/07 to 12/07 was charged on the basis of seasonal charge as per norms of WBSEDCL which was communicated on 4th Oct, 2008 by an advertisement in the Newspaper.  He has denied that the excess bill was charged.  It has been further contended that the metering system against the unmeter STW connection  is going to be introduced very soon, thus, there was no deficiency in service and the complainant cannot get compensation as prayed for and the case is liable to be dismissed.

 

Page 3 of 6

In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case the only point to be considered is whether there caused any deficiency in service by sending the electric bills for the period for which he did not consume any electricity due to fault of the transformer?

 

FINDING WITH REASONS

 

The Ld. Lawyer of the complainant has argued that it is admitted fact that the OP took away the transformer on 29.04.07 due to burnt of the transformer.  He has further contended that the said transformer was given on 17.12.07 or thereafter, thus, the complainant has not consumed any electricity for the period from 29.04.07 to 17.12.07 for which the OP has charged the bills.  As the complainant has not consumed electricity during that period he is not bound to pay the charges during that period.   By claiming the charges for that period the OP has committed deficiency in service.  He has further pointed out that being afraid of disconnection of electric line, he has paid all the bills which was sent by the OP for the period which may be adjusted from the future bills.

The Ld. Lawyer of the OP has argued that the bill for the month of April, 07 reflects the consumption of electricity for the month of March, 07.  Besides, the complainant executed an agreement with the OP whereon he agreed to pay Rs. 8,800/- annually as electric charge and the bills are sent to the complainant per month by dividing it by 12.   He has also cited a ruling AIR 2000 Patna 297 in support of his contention and also some documents, viz, gist of tariff order dtd. 30.9.08 of the Hon'ble WB Electricity Regulatory Commission for the year 2008 – 09 showing the tariff @ Rs. 8,800/-. 

 

Perused the rulings and the documents .

Page 4 of 6

It is admitted fact that the electric connection to the swallow machine of the complainant remained stopped from 29.04.07 and according to the complainant that electric connection resumed on 17.12.07.    It is also admitted fact that the bills for the period from April 07 to December 07 @ Rs. 733/-, each have been sent to the complainant for making payment.  From the above it transpires that the  complainant  did  not enjoy electricity from 29.04.07 to 17.12.07.   In spite of that the electricity charges for the non-consumption period i.e., from 29.04.07 to 17.12.07 have been charged.

 

According to the Ld. Lawyer of the OP, the complainant executed an agreement with the OP whereon he agreed that he would pay Rs. 8800/- per year.   

 

Now, the contention of the Ld. Lawyer of the OP that the complainant is bound to pay the electricity charge for the period for which he did not enjoy the same – how far it is acceptable ?

 

It is fact that we cannot change the tariff of electricity or the regulation.   

 

The OP has not produced any copy of the agreement executed by the parties of this case.  It may be presumed that the agreement was that the OP would supply the electricity to the swallow machine of the complainant and for the enjoyment of electricity throughout the year the complainant will pay the charges of Rs. 8800/- per year.   It is fact that this amount will be divided by 12 for claiming the charges for each month.  As the copy of the agreement has not been produced by the OP, we are unable to believe that the complainant agreed to pay electricity charge for the period for which he has not enjoyed the same.   As it is fact that the electric line  to  the  swallow  machine  of  the  complainant  remained  disconnected  for  the 

Page 5 of 6

period from 29.04.07 to 17.12.07, in our considered view that the complainant is not bound to pay the electricity charge for the period of which he did not enjoy the electricity.   As the copy of the agreement has not been produced it may easily be presumed that the OP agreed to supply electricity to the swallow machine throughout the year for which the complainant agreed to pay Rs. 8800/- per year and per month the amount divided by 12 of Rs. 8800/-.   It may not be in the agreement that the OP will not supply electricity to the swallow machine and in spite of that the complainant will have to pay the charges as per agreement.

 

In view of the above observation in our considered view that the complainant  has succeeded to establish his case who is entitled to enjoy the relief.  Thus, there caused deficiency in service on the part of the OP by sending the bills to the complainant for disconnection period. 

 

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case we are reluctant to award compensation to the complainant as claimed.   

 

Hence,

Ordered,

That the instant case is allowed on contest with cost of Rs. 2000/- (Rupees two thousand) only.

The OP is directed not to demand the electric bill from April, 29.04.07 to 17.12.07 from the complainant and the amount which has been paid by the complainant for that period will be adjusted from the future bills of the complainant.  The 1st adjustment will occur from the bill of October, 2009.   The OP to adjust the paid up amount for the disconnection period from the future bills in the manner as cited in this paragraph. 

Page 6 of 6

The OP is further directed to install the meter to the swallow machine of the complainant as early as possible when the meter will be available.   

The OP to pay the cost of Rs. 2,000/- as cited above to the complainant within 40 days from the date of this order failing which the amount shall accrue interest @ 9% per annum till the date of making payment from this day.

We pass no order of compensation as discussed in the body of the judgment.  

Hand over a copy of this order to the parties free of cost.

The case is disposed of by 1 month 26 days i.e., within the statutory period.

 

Dictated & corrected by me.

 

 

   (D.K. Basu)

     President         

C.D.R.F., Nadia

(K. Mukhopadhyay)        (S. Bhattacharya)            (D.K. Basu)

          Member               Member                     President