West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/2/2017

Sk. Intaj Ali - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Station Manager, W.B.S.E.D.C.L. - Opp.Party(s)

Pravakar Samanta

13 Jul 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

     Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

Sagarika Sarkar, Member. 

and 

Pulak Kumar Singha, Member.

 

Complaint Case No.02/2017

 

             Sk. Intaj Ali, S/o Sk. Seraj Ali, Vill Sultanpur, P.O. Hat-Sultanpur, P.S. Kharagpur,

             District - Paschim Medinipur. …………..………..……Complainant.

                                                                              Vs.

             The Station Manager, Medinipur C/C/C, W.B.S.E.D.C.L, P.O. Madpur, District

             Paschim Medinipur, PIN-721149....……….….Opp. Party.

                                                    

              For the Complainant: Mr.  Pravakar Samanta, Advocate.

              For the O.P.               : Mr. Debiprasad Das Mahapatra, Advocate.

 

Decided on: -13/07/2017

                               

ORDER

                          Bibekananda Pramanik, President – This is a consumer complaint u/s 12 of the C.P. Act, filed by the complainant, Sk. Intaj Ali against the O.P.-The Station Manager, Medinipur C/C/C, W.B.S.E.D.C.L. alleging deficiency in service on their part.

     Facts of the case, in brief, are that the complainant is a bonafide consumer

of Medinipur C/C/C/, W.B.S.E.D.C.L. having his electric connection for sub- marshible pump vide consumer I.D. No.200721990 dated 15/11/2013.  Without taking meter reading for about 15 months, the O.P. wrote down 5586 units in his yellow card of the said meter.  On 07/02/2015, meter reading was shown as 11112 units in the yellow card by the employee of the O.P. but no electric bills for about 18 months were sent to the complainant.  The complainant verbally requested the O.P. for sending electric bills and accordingly the O.P. sent an electric bill of Rs.1380/- and the complainant paid the said bill on 30/01/2015.  Thereafter an electric bill of Rs.44967/- was sent by

Contd…………………..P/2

 

( 2 )

 

 the O.P. on 17/03/2015 without tariff.  Again, the O.P. sent a huge amount of electric bill of Rs.90222/- to the complainant on 01/09/2016 without taking any meter reading.  The complainant informed the O.P in writing on three times for sending correct and accurate electric bill and accordingly the O.P. sent a electric bill  of Rs.50,527/- instead of electric bill of Rs.90,222/-.  The complainant has contended that his total cultivable land was 20 Bighas which he cultivates through the said electric connection.  It is stated that the complainant paid electric bill of Rs.1380/-, Rs.25,000/- and Rs.20,000/- to the O.P. During the period from 01/01/2016 to 26/08/2016, there was no display of reading in electric meter and the complainant accordingly informed the O.P. in writing on 12/07/2016 and on 16/08/2016.  Thereafter the old meter was replaced by the O.P. on 27/08/2016 and an average bill was sent to the complainant which is totally incorrect and illegal.  It is alleged that the O.P. has sent a huge amount of outstanding electric bill of Rs.90,222/-  on 01/09/2016 out of the which the complainant  has already paid an amount of Rs.46380/-.  On basis of the complaint  sent by the complainant,  the O.P. corrected the electric bill to some extent and sent an electric bill of Rs.50,527/- on 17/10/2016 which is also not accurate and proper as per meter reading.  Thereafter the O.P. threatened the complainant on 30/12/2016 that his S.T.W. electric connection will be disconnected for non- payment of electric bill of Rs.50,527/-.  Hence, the complaint, praying for directing the O.P. not to disconnect the said service connection on the plea of non -payment electric bill of Rs.50527/- and to direct the O.P. to correct the said illegal electric bill and for other reliefs.

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 S.T.W. connection of the complainant was effected on 15/11/2015 with three phase meter vide meter no.RGX 86743 with initial reading O.  The first energy bill was raised on 19/01/2015 of 189 units.  The second energy bill was raised on 16/03/2015 as per meter reading 11112 units.  Subsequently energy bill was raised according to the reading recorded in the yellow card.  On 10/11/2016, the said meter was found defective for which the energy bill for the month of February 2016 was raised with estimated unit as per guidelines of W.B.E.R.C.  After receiving the application of the complainant, O.P. scrutinized the meter reading card and found that the complainant has paid bill for the month of February, 2015.  So the said bill was regenerated for bill of month of February 2016 on the basis of average consumption of agricultural  seasons widely known as Boro season.  The total consumption in two consecutive Boro seasons i.e. 2013-14, 2014-15, comprising of 4 months each was 14162 units as per reading noted in the yellow card on 23/03/2015.  So according to the O.P. average monthly consumption of the complainant in one agricultural season is 14162/8 = 1770 units.  So the estimated unit comes as 1770 x 4=7080 units for the period of February 2016 to May 2016.  The defective meter was subsequently replaced by a new

Contd…………………..P/3

 

( 3 )

 

 one vide meter no.GWO40789 on 27/08/2016.  It is stated that the present outstanding dues against the complainant in S.T.W. connection is Rs.54318.26/- and the said bill is legal, genuine and payable.  It is further stated that the O.P has no deficiency in service on his part and the complainant is not entitled to relief as prayed for.

              To prove his case the complainant has examined himself as PW-1 by

tendering a written examination- in- chief supported by affidavit and the documents,  relied upon by the complainant,  have been marked as exhibit 1 to 5 respectively.  On the other hand, O.P. adduced no evidence.

                                                                 Points for decision

1. Is the case maintainable in it’s present form and prayer?
2. Is the complainant a consumer of the O.P. under the provision of C.P. Act?
3. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
4. Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs, as sought for?    

                   

Decision with reasons

            Point nos. 1 & 2

                     Maintainability of this case has been questioned by the O.P. on the ground that the present case is neither maintainable nor entertainable in law.  At the time of hearing of argument, Ld. Lawyer for the O.P. submitted that the present complainant is not a consumer under the C.P. Act as he has been enjoying his electric service connection for the purpose of earning profit.  In support of  such contention, Ld. Lawyer  has drawn our attention on the cross-examination of PW-1, Sk. Intaj Ali, the complainant.  From his cross examination, we find,  as pointed out by the Ld. Lawyer of the O.P,  that the complainant  has admitted that from such STW pump, he supplies water in 20/22 bighas of agricultural land and out of those 20/22 of bighas of land, he has 6 bighas of lands and he supplies such water through such STW electric service connection to other lands of other people on yearly contract basis and for such supply of water he earns  Rs.12000/- to Rs.15000/- during one season.  It thus appears that the complainant has been using such electric service connection in his STW pump for earning profits i.e. for commercial purpose and therefore we have no hesitation to hold that the complainant is not a consumer of the O.P. under the C.P. Act.  These two points are accordingly decided against the complainant.  

Point no.3  

            In his petition of complaint in paragraph 17, the complainant has stated that the cause of action arose on and from 30/12/2016 when the O.P. threatened to disconnect his service connection.  Nowhere in his petition of complaint, the complainant has specifically stated that there is any

Contd…………………..P/4

( 4 )

 

deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.  On the other hand,  from the petitions of complaint, we find that it is none but the complainant has stated that when he found that his electric meter was not displaying meter reading on and from 01/01/2016 to26/08/2016,  then he informed the O.P. in writing and thereafter the O.P. replaced his electric meter on 27.08.2016.  According to the complaint,  after such replacement of the meter an average bill was sent by the O.P. which according to the complainant was incorrect and illegal.  The complainant therefore sent an application to the O.P. for correction of the electric bill amounting to Rs.90,222/-  and on basis of such application,  the O.P. corrected the bill amount by sending fresh electric bill of Rs.50,527/- instead of Rs.90,222/-.  It thus appears that on prayer of the complainant, the O.P. at first replaced the old electric meter, allegedly to be defective and thereafter on being requested by the complainant, the O.P. corrected the electric bill of Rs.90,222/- and send an electric bill of Rs.50,527/-.  In that view of the matter,  it cannot be held that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.

            Accordingly this point is also decided against the complainant.

Point no.4

            In view of our above findings in point NOs.1, 2 & 3, the complainant is not entitled to the reliefs, as prayed for.

            All the points are accordingly disposed of.

            In the result, the complaint case fails.

 

                                                  Hence, it is,

                                                     Ordered,

                                                   that the complaint case no.02/2017  is hereby dismissed on contest but in the circumstances without cost.

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

 

Dictated & corrected by me

                                  

      President                       Member                    Member                      President 

                                                                                                          District Forum

                                                                                                       Paschim Medinipur