West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/48/2013

Mihir Kumar Chanda. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Station Manager, Keshiary Gr.E/S, WBSEDCL. - Opp.Party(s)

10 Aug 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

     Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

     Pulak Kumar Singha, Member

and

   Sagarika Sarkar, Member. 

 

Complaint Case No.48/2013

 

Mihir Kumar Chanda, S/o-Late Debendra Nath Chanda,

Vill-Dakshindiha, P.O.-Junbalda,

P.S.-Keshiary, District-Paschim Medinipur..………..……Complainant.

Vs.

The Station Manager, Keshiary Gr. E/S-W.B.S.E.D.C.L.,

P.O. & P.S.-Keshiary, Dist-Paschim Medinipur....……….….Opp. Party.

                                                     

                For the Complainant   : Mr. Tapash Adhya, Advocate.

                For the O.P.                 : Mr. Shyama Pada Dutta, Advocate.

 

Decided on:10/08/2017

                               

ORDER

            Pulak Kumar Singha, Member : 

 

                    This is the case u/s 12 of the C.P. Act, filed by the complainant, Mihir Kumar Chandra against the O.P., the Station Manager, W.B.S.E.D.C.L.

                  Facts of the case, in brief, are that the complainant has permanent electric connection since 2010 for using mini deep tube well for his cultivation.  Complainant paid monthly bills of electric energy regularly and paid the bills up to July 2012 as those bills were prepared as per meter reading.  O.P. raised bills for the month of August 2012 to September 2012 of Rs.74,986/- which is exorbitant, illegal and whimsical.  Complainant

                                                                                                                                                                     Contd……………P/2

 

                                                                                                  ( 2 )

 raised objection and made a complaint to the O.P. against the illegal bill but O.P. did not pay heed.  O.P.  further raised subsequent period bills up to February 2013 but complainant did not pay those arrear bills.  Due to non-payment of earlier bills O.P. disconnected the electric connection for which complainant faced huge loss amount into Rs.3,50,000/- for non-cultivation of Boro crops.  For getting reliefs complainant approached before this Forum with some prayer as per complaint. 

The opposite party has contested this case by filling a written objection.

 Denying and disputing the case of the complainant, it is the specific case of the opposite party that the case is barred by limitation, this case is not maintainable, complainant prayed for installation for paying the bills of Rs.73,271/- for the period August 2012 and accordingly instalements scheduled has been prepared but complainant did not pay any amount of installments  up to 19/03/2013 as such O.P. disconnected the electric connection of complainant.  O.P. prayed that the case of the complainant is rejected with cost. 

 

 

                                                                 Points for decision

1. Is the case maintainable in it’s present form and prayer?
2. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
3. Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs, as sought for?    

                   

Decision with reasons

For the sake of convenience and brevity, all the above points are taken up together for consideration.

We travelled over the complaint, documents, evidence and materials on record, it appears that complainant is a consumer of O.P.  and got electric connection for S.T.W. connection for his cultivation.  Complainant also paid bills of electric energy till July 2012 but dispute arise while O.P. raised bill for the period September 2012 where consumption period is August 2012 and unit consume in three separate single phase meter shows 0-0-0- and payable amount of Rs.83/- only within due date but outstanding shows Rs.74897/- for 08/2012.  O.P. raised bill October 2012, consumption period September 2012 and unit consumed 1088 units in three meters and an amount payable of Rs.3940/- where outstanding shows Rs.74986/-  for the period 08/2012, 09/2012 and said outstanding has been carry forwarded with adding next month bill as such outstanding amount gradually increased up to

                                                                                                                                                                 Contd……………P/3

 

                                                                                                  ( 3 )

Rs.80,449/- and such amount shown in the bill for the month of December 2012, consumption period November 2012 and such amount shows as outstanding of the period 08/2012 to 11/2012 i.e. August 2012 to November 2012.  Surprisingly it appears in the bill for the month of January 2013, consumption period December 2012 where outstanding shows Rs.6363/- for the period 09/2012 to 12/2012 and INST due Rs.79,840/-.  Bill for the month of February 2013, consumption period January 2013,  outstanding shows Rs.30,651/- for the period 09-2012 to 01-2013 and INST due Rs.79,840/-. 

            Complainant stated in his petition of complaint, evidence and letter dated 04/10/2012 raised objection regarding outstanding amount for the month of bill September 2012, consumption period August 2012 and bill for the month October 2012, consumption period September 2012.  It is admitted that complainant paid last bill of Rs.10,559/- (exhibit 1/11) dated 10/08/2012, bill for the month June and July 2012 including outstanding amount,  as such no outstanding dues up to July 2012.  But when O.P. raised bill for the consumption period August 2012 (exhibit 1/15) where unit consumption in three meters shown as 0-0-0- and payable amount shown Rs.83/- only but outstanding shown Rs.74,897/- as outstanding for the period 08-2012 i.e. August 2012.  It is very much surprised that where bill paid up to July 2012 with outstanding amount and no further outstanding was due, why O.P. shows outstanding of Rs.74,897/- in the bill consumption  period 08-2012, and bill  for the month September 2012, where unit consumption payable amount within 21/09/2012 of Rs.83/- only.

         O.P. never disclosed the cause of such huge amount of outstanding in their W/O as well as written argument.  O.P. did not adduce any evidence on their behalf to prove their claim and give then explanation regarding showing outstanding amount in the bill for the month September 2012 and consumption period August 2012.

         Complainant to prove his case and his evidence submitted original bills and other documents which are all mark exhibits.  Complainant stated in his complaint, evidence and written intimation to the O.P. for correction of exorbitant, illegal bills and complainant is ready to pay correct bills for disputed months.  Complainant, no where claimed that electric meters were defective or meters were not functioning, rather complainant everywhere stated that the outstanding bills from the month August, September and onwards are incorrect, illegal and exorbitant. 

        We find from the record that without any allegation in respect of defective meters by the complainant, O.P. sue moto by filling a petition before this Forum with a prayer for testing the meters in question to the competent authority W.B.S.E.D.C.L.,

                                                                                                                                                                  Contd……………P/4

 

 

                                                                                                       ( 4 )

accordingly as per order of this Forum said meters were sent to the competent authority of W.B.S.E.D.C.L. and after testing those three meters are found correct and observation of the authority mentioned that accuracy of the meters are within the permissible limit but complainant never disputed that meters were defective.  Rather for sending the meters in question for tasting,  complainant had to deposit Rs.40,000/- on 27/01/2016 as provisional towards the disputed arrear bills with the O.P., though said meter testing report is not proved by adducing any evidence.  O.P. has stated in his written objection that as per prayer of complainant O.P. allowed installments to pay the disputed bill of Rs.73,271/- for the period August 2012 but complainant denied that statement and O.P. has also failed to prove regarding payment of such amount by way of installments rather complainant raised objection for such illegal bill and prayed for sending the correct bill as per meter reading.

     We travelled over the documents and case record, it appears that O.P. mysteriously kept silence both in the W.O. and in written argument in respect of sudden appearance of Rs.74,897/- as outstanding for the period 08-2012 showing in the bill for the month of September,  consumption period 08-2012 where it admitted position by O.P. that the electric bill for the period up to July 2012 has paid up on 10/08/2012 (exhibit 1/11).  We cannot convinced regarding outstanding amount of Rs.74,897/- shown in the bill, consumption period August 2012 as arear on outstanding of August 2012, where in three meters units consumed 0-0-0- (zero units) and amount of Rs.83/- only is payable within due date.  O.P. neither clarify nor explain how such amount of Rs.74,897/- has been shown as outstanding amount for 08-2012 in the bill, consumption period August 2012.  From the documents and evidence it reveals that complainant repeatedly knocking the doors and raised objection to O.P. against such illegal bill and requested them to send correct bill, which the complainant is ready to pay.  Complainant also stated in his complaint and objection letter that he is ready to pay the bills for the disputed period if it is prepared according to meter reading.

       It is evident from the documents and record that O.P., in this case played a safe game by avoiding the allegation against them and also contested the case not in clean hand.  O.P. should have the first duty to clarity or explain how outstanding amount of Rs.74,897/- has come out, as outstanding of August 2012 but O.P. avoided of such grave allegation, placed the ball in other ground by way of meter testing which is not at all case of complainant that meters were defective.

      In view of the above discussions herein complainant has proved his case by cogent evidence, on the other hand O.P. has failed to controvert the evidence and allegation of complainant.  In view of the above we think that O.P. is negligent, deficient in service for

                                                                                                                                                                    Contd……………P/4

 

                                                                                         ( 5 )

such complainant is entitled to get relief.  We find from the complaint and documents that O.P. did not consider the objection and prayer for correction of the inflated bill for the month of August 2012 and onwards though complainant paid electric bills up to July 2012 rather disconnected the electric connection of said meters on 19/03/2013. Complainant suffers huge loss for such disconnection as on that period was the peak season for Boro cultivation for which complaint faced huge loss and such statement is also supported by evidence of P.W-2.

      We find from the evidence and documents on record that the complainant is a consumer of O.P and the instant case is filed within the jurisdiction and period of limitation as such this case is well maintainable as per C.P. Act.   Considering the documents, evidence and materials on record we think that O.P. is negligent and deficient in rendering service for which complainant has been suffering physical and mental harassment and also suffers monitory loss.  In view of the above we find that complainant has proved his case by cogent evidence.  Thus the complaint case succeeds.  

                                                  Hence, it is,

                                                     Ordered,

                                           that the complaint case no.48/2013  is allowed on contest against O.P. with cost.  O.P. is directed to send electric bills only as per actual meter reading from August 2012 to 19/03/2013 besides any outstanding, subject to adjustment of Rs.40,000/- paid on 27/01/2016, without imposing interest and penal charges within 45 days to the complainant from the date of the order. 

O.P. is further directed to pay compensation of Rs.30,000/- for harassment and monitory loss and to pay Rs.3,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant within stipulated period.  Complainant is also directed to pay the electric bills raised by O.P. as per order of this Forum.  

                               Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

             Dictated and Corrected by me

                       Sd/- P.K. Singha                             Sd/- S. Sarkar                       Sd/-B. Pramanik.

                            Member                                           Member                                 President

                                                                                                                               District Forum

                                                                                                                            Paschim Medinipur