West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/158/2014

Sri Nirmal Kumar Mondal - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

26 May 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

 Complaint case No.158/2014                                                         Date of disposal: 26/05/2015                               

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

                                                      MEMBER :  Mrs. Debi Sengupta.

                                                      MEMBER :  XXXXXXXXXXXX.

  

 For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff : Mr.S. Bhattacharjee, Advocate.

 For the Defendant/O.P.S.                        : Mr.S.K. Bhattacharjee, Advocate.                                   

          

 Sri Nirmal Kumar Mandal, S/O Late Kishori Mohan Mondal, Housing No.H.C/34, Type.5, Police

 Line Complex, P.O. Medinipur, Dist. Paschim Medinipur…………..Complainant

                                                           Vs.

1)The Station Manager, W.B.S.E.D.C.L., Medinipur C.C.C. At Burdge Town, P.O. Medinipur, Dist. Paschim Medinipur.

2)The Chairman, W.B.S.E.D.C.L., Bidyut Bhaban, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-96………..Ops.

         The case of the complainant Sri Nirmal Kumar Mandal, in short, is that he is a bona fide consumer under the OP enjoying electricity has paid all bills upto November 2013.  It is alleged that since long past 19/09/2012 his grievance relating to meter has not been entertained by the OP.  On the contrary, he received a bill dated 18/12/2013 claiming Rs.23,933/- during the period from December 2014 ( may be 2013)  to February 2014 on account of 2970 units which is unreasonable and baseless.  Upon several complaints, one employee of the OP on 31/05/2014 checked the meter and reported Hai Reading meaning High Reading in the yellow meter card.  Thereafter, the meter was changed by the OP on 21/06/2014 and up on reading from 01/09/2013 to 16/12/2013 the bill was requested for consideration.  But no suitable action has been taken by the OP.  Rather, the amount of the said disputed bill was shown as outstanding dues in the subsequent bills prepared on the basis of newly installed meter.  In this event, the complainant requested for receiving the current bill pending the amount of disputed bill for consideration.  But the OP paid no heed to, but are threatening to disconnect the supply of electricity.  Stating the case, the complainant has come before us with the prayer for rectification of the disputed bill dated 18/12/2013 with compensation

 

Contd………..P/2

 

                                                               - ( 2 ) -

 

of Rs.30,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.  In order to prove the case certain documents with copy of the disputed bill dated 18.12.2013 and several applications are produced.     

         The Op contested the case by filling written objection challenging that the case is not maintainable for want of cause of action as there is no case as alleged against them.  The grievance relating to electric meter was considered and new meter was installed which was running satisfactorily.  The bill date 18/12/2013 for the period from December 2013 to February 2014 was raised on the basis of the correct reading of the said newly installed meter but the payment was not made.  As a result, the agreement has been terminated.  Apart from that, the allegation of High Reading in the yellow card cannot be presumed that the meter is defective.  Even though the previous meter was replaced with a new meter. Thus, there is no question of deficiency of service on the part of the OP and thereby 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 from?

2)Whether the complainant has any cause of action for presentation of this petition of complaint?

3)Whether the case is barred by jurisdiction?

4)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 matter.

              Ld. Advocate for the complainant made his argument that there was no yellow meter card supplied to the complainant since inspection of electricity connection.  Secondly, grievance of the complainant on defective meter was not considered in time and thirdly, issue of inflated bills issued to the complainant are all proves the allegation of deficiency of service against the OP.  It was further argued that, the disputed bill dated 18/12/2013 has been considered with the help of newly installed meter.  Ld. Advocate has categorically pointed out the different unit figures recorded on different dates in order to establish that the disputed bill is not testified with the unit reading of the new meter.  Thus, the complainant is not liable for making payment of the amount erroneously claimed by the OP by raising the disputed bill dated 18/12/2013 unless its modification by virtue of new meter is made by them.

       Ld. Advocate for the OP raised strong objection through the argument that the complainant

Contd………..P/3

 

                                                               - ( 3 ) -

 

 purposely avoided the yellow card for his own interest.  Moreover, upon a complaint regarding functioning of old meter, a new meter was installed thereon.  Even, thereafter, the complainant is not purposely making payment of electricity charge appearing in the modified bill in place of disputed bill dated 18/12/2013.  Thus, in the event of non-payment of the bill, existing agreement between the parties for supply of electricity has been cancelled.  This is a matter of contract and in terms thereof the supply of electricity should have been disconnected.  Ld. Advocate further referred to the relevant provisions of the Electricity Rules.  Thus, the case has no merit and as such the same should be dismissed.

        We have carefully considered the case as a whole.  From the evidence on record, it appears that there is no dispute that the old meter was replaced with a new one on 21/06/2014.  If that be so, the disputed bill dated 18/12/2013 for the period from December 2013 to February 2014 was undoubtedly on the basis of report card of old meter prior to its replacement.  In this connection, there is no discrepancy report of the old meter so as to technically detect the erroneous reading for modification of the disputed bill.  Since, the old meter was consideratively removed with a new meter by the OP, it is incumbent upon them to determine the error and thereafter to modifying the disputed bill.  Unless the same is done, the complainant cannot be pressurized for payment of the bill mere on the basis of reading out of old meter.  Similarly, contractual relationship does not term into the question of its cancellation.

        Upon the discussion we are in the opinion that the complainant has cause of action for presentation of this case and as such he is entitled for getting relief as prayed for.  Thus, the issues are held and decided in favour of the complainant.        

               Hence,

                           It is Ordered,    

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

            The complainant is entitled to get the disputed bill dated 18/12/2013 corrected and rectified with reference to the average reading out of newly installed meter throughout the year.

            Accordingly, the OP is directed to raise a modified bill in place of the disputed bill dated 18/12/2013 by 30 days from the date of this order.

            The complainant shall make payment of the modified bill within 7 (seven) days from the date of its receipt.  

Dictated & Corrected by me

              

         President                                                   Member                                            President

                                                                                                                                 District Forum

                                                                                                                               Paschim Medinipur.