Date of Filing: 12-04-2017 Date of Final Order: 23-03-2018
Sri Asish Kumar Senapati, President
This is an application u/s 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
One Poritosh Mandal (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant) filed the complaint against the Station Manager, Dinhata-I Customer Care Centre, W.B.S.E.D.C.L. (hereinafter referred to as the OP) alleging deficiency in service.
The gist of the complaint case is that the Complainant is a bona-fide consumer of the electricity under the OP vide Consumer ID No.424011380 since 1988 and he had paid electricity charges as per Meter reading up to June, 2014. Subsequently, the OP changed the old Meter and installed a new digital Meter being No.4S 442884 and the Complainant had been paying the bills regularly on the basis of Meter reading. In 2013, the OP changed the Meter without any demand of the Complainant and issued a Meter Card in favour of the Complainant. Neither the staff member of the OP nor the OP himself sent any bill as per proper consumption and they issued bill at their sweet will and the last payment of the bill was made on 21.08.14 amounting to Rs.331/-. The Complainant requested the OP to take regular Meter reading but he did not pay any heed to it. The Meter Reader of the OP visited the home of the Complainant only thrice during the period from January, 2014 to December, 2016 in lieu of 12 times. Subsequently, in January, 2015, one Bill Collection Agent of the OP came to the home of the Complainant and supplied a bill for the months of October, 2014 to December, 2014 amounting to Rs.23,096/- along with outstanding dues. The Complainant contacted the Office of the OP for rectifying the bill but of no result. Afterwards, the Complainant received another bill in the month of January, 2017 for the period from October, 2016 to December, 2016 for consumption of 50 units amounting to Rs.34,486/- and outstanding dues of Rs. 31,207/- which revealed itself that the bill was not revised or rectified on the basis of actual consumption and slab benefit. That in March, 2017, the staff of the OP went to the home of the Complainant for disconnection of the electricity for non-payment of the bill and the Complainant resisted the same action of the OP for disconnection of the electricity without giving any opportunity to the Complainant which was illegal and arbitrary and tantamounted to deficiency in service. The Complainant was ready and willing to pay the bill amount for actual electric consumption but not in un-accounted manner.
The cause of action of the present case arose in January, 2015. The Complainant prayed for a direction, so that his service connection is not disconnected and also direction upon the OP for revision/rectification of the bill on the basis of actual consumption and slab benefit, Rs. 10,000/- for deficiency in service, Rs.15,000/- for mental pain and agony and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation cost.
The OP contested the case by filing w/v on 13.07.17 contending that the case is not maintainable as there is no cause of action against the OP. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The Old Meter of the Complainant was replaced with a new digital Meter in terms of the circular/guidelines of the WBSEDCL and the defective Meter of the Complainant was replaced on 05.10.2013. Since 2014, WBSEDCL introduced Spot Billing System i.e. preparation of bill after taking the Meter reading through a software system on the spot. Prior to introduction of spot billing, the Meter Readers used to collect the Meter reading from the existing Meter of the consumer and recorded the same in the Meter reading Card and also in the Office Card. On 05.10.2014, the staff of the OP found Meter reading as 2393 units. Accordingly, by deducting the previous reading i.e. 108 units, 2285 units were claimed from the consumer amounting to Rs.19,171/-. Thereafter, the next bill dated 09.01.15 was claimed by deducting the previous reading i.e. 2393 units from the present reading 3044 units i.e. 651 units for the bill months of October to December, 2014 amounting to Rs.4,030/- along with outstanding bill of Rs.19,172/-, Total amount Rs.23,096/-. The Complainant did not contact the OP for rectifying the said bills. Except on 11.05.15, the Complainant never came to the Office of the OP for lodging any complaint. In January, 2017, the Complainant received the bill dated 20.01.17 (Spot Bill) for consumption of 50 units amounting to Rs.290.88. The OP had furnished a chart from the Billing date 29.07.14 to 18.04.17. There was no negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The OP Prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
On the basis of above versions, the following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the Complainant a Consumer as per provision under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?
- Has the O.P any deficiency in service as alleged by the Complainant?
- Whether the Complainant entitled to get any relief/reliefs, as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point No.1.
The Ld. Agent for the Complainant has submitted that the Complainant is a consumer of the OP as he hired the services of the OP. In reply, the Ld. Agent for the OP stated nothing on this point. On a careful consideration, we find valid substance in the submission of the Ld. Agent for the Complainant. We think that the Complainant is a consumer of the OP as per provision under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986.
Point No.2.
The Ld. Agent for the Complainant has submitted that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and the claimed amount is also within the pecuniary limit of the District Forum. Having heard the Ld. Agents of both sides and on perusal of the complaint petition, w/v and other materials on record, we find that this Forum has both pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
Point Nos.3 & 4.
Both the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and to avoid repetition.
The Ld. Agent for the Complainant submitted that the Complainant had\s been enjoying electricity since 1998 and the OP changed the old Meter and installed a new digital Meter without any application of the Complainant. It is alleged that the Complainant paid electricity bill up to June, 2014 and afterwards, no Meter Reader used to visit the premises of the Complainant for regular meter reading and the Meter Reader only took meter reading thrice during the year 2014. It is argued that the Complainant received a bill in the month of January, 2015 amounting Rs. 23,096/- which is excessive and illegal but the OP did not pay any heed to the Complainant for rectification of the said bill. He further argued that the Complainant lodged a written complaint with the OP on 11.05.15 and received another bill in the month of January, 2017 for the bill months of October, 2016 to December, 2016 for units consumed 50 amounting to Rs.31,486 and outstanding dues of Rs.31,207/-. It was further argued that the OP tried to disconnect the electricity of the Complainant in March, 2017 but it was not successful due to resistance of the Complainant. He argued that the amount claimed by the OP in the bills for the consumption period October, 2014 to December, 2016 are illegal and baseless. He prayed for passing necessary direction upon the OP to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- for deficiency in service, Rs. 15,000/- towards mental pain and agony and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of proceeding.
In reply, the Ld. Agent for the OP has submitted that the Complainant filed the case with a motive to evade the payment of electricity bills. He argued that there was no deficiency in service /unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. He contended that the old Meter was replaced by a new digital Meter as per circular/ guidelines of the WBSEDCL, for which no consent/application of the Complainant was necessary. It was further argued that the defective Meter of the Complainant was replaced on 05.10.2013. He submits that the WBSEDCL introduced spot billing system after taking the meter reading through a software system on the spot since 2014 and the system of recording the meter reading in the Meter Card was changed. He further argued that on 05.10.2014, the Meter Reader found 2393 units and accordingly by deducting the previous reading i.e. 108 units from the present reading 2393 units i.e. 2393-108=2285 units were claimed from the consumer amounting to Rs.19,171/- and thereafter, in the next bill dated 09.01.15, the meter reading was 3044 units and the OP claimed (3044-2393) 651 units for the bill months of October, November and December, 2014 amounting to Rs.4,030/- along with outstanding bill of Rs.19,172/- totaling Rs.23.096/-. He further argued that the OP never assured the Complainant that he would issue fresh bill. It was argued that the units of consumption from the bill dated 19.07.2014 to 18.04.17 was stated in para 16 of the w/v and evidence of the OP and the total outstanding amount from the Complainant was Rs.32,051/-. He further argued that the Complainant tried his level best to avoid his liability from making the payment of outstanding bills. It was argued that the complaint is frivolous and vexatious. He prayed for dismissal of the complaint u/s 26 of the CP Act, 1986.
Admittedly, the Complainant is a consumer of the OP and he has been enjoying electricity since long. Admittedly, the Complainant paid electricity charges up to June, 2014 on 21.08.2014. The Complainant has filed this case on 12.04.17. The Complainant has not been paying electricity charges for the billing months from July, 2014 till date on the plea that the OP issued the bill dated 09.01.2015 not in accordance with electricity consumption of the Complainant. It is not the case of the Complainant that the Electric Meter was defective. It is the specific case of the Complainant that the OP did not send the Meter Reader to record the meter reading regularly, causing preparation of bill according to their sweet will. The Complainant has raised the point that the claimed amount of Rs.23,096/- showing consumption of 651 units during the period from 05.10.2014 to 07.01.15 was absurd and not in accordance with actual meter reading but it appears from the meter reading card submitted by the Complainant (Annexure C) that claim of 651 units during the period from 05.10.14 to 07.01.15 is correct. It is not understood as to why the Complainant did not pay the bills for a long period.
We find that the OP has stated about the spot billing system since 2014 but the Complainant has not denied the said fact. It is strange to note that the Complainant has raised the consumer dispute for the units consumed during the period from 05.10.14 to 07.01.15 but it appears from the w/v and evidence of the OP that the bills during the period from July, 2014 to September, 2014 was also due from the Complainant. It is not understood as to why the Complainant did not pay the bills after the consumption month June, 2014. The Complainant has cleverly omitted to mention about the outstanding bill for the period from July, 2014 to September, 2014, specially when he was aware of the fact that he paid bills up to June, 2014. The Complainant has not raised any dispute regarding the bill for the period from July, 2014 to September, 2014 but did not pay the bill due to reason best known to him. Considering the facts and circumstances, we find that the Complainant has tried his level best to evade from making payment of electricity charges without any consumer dispute between the Complainant and the OP. The Complainant has been successful in his mission by not making payment of electricity bills for the consumption months from June, 2014 till date. The OP issued the electricity bills in favour of the Complainant as per meter reading by maintaining guidelines /circulars of the WBSEDCL.
We find that the Complainant has failed to establish any deficiency in service on the part of the OP. We find that the Complainant has not come before this Forum with clean hands. He has suppressed the material facts that he had not paid the bill for the months from July, 2014 to September, 2014. So, he is not entitled to get any relief against the OP. The OP is at liberty to realize the outstanding dues from the Complainant in accordance with law.
In the result, the complaint case fails.
Fees paid are correct.
Hence,
It is Ordered,
That the complaint case be and the same is hereby dismissed on contest against the OP without any cost.
Let plain copy of this Order be supplied to the parties concerned by hand/by Post forthwith, free of cost for information & necessary action. The copy of the Final Order will also be available in the following Website:
confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me.
