West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/43/2015

Nemai Chand Das - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Station Manager, WBSEDCL. - Opp.Party(s)

13 Aug 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

&

Kapot Kumar Chattopadhyay Member.

 

Complaint Case No.43/2015

 

Nemai Chand Das…………….………Complainant

Versus

The Station Manager/ Assistant Engineer, W.B.S.E.D.C.L,

………..Opp. Parties.

 

For the Complainant: Mr. Tapas Adhya, Advocate.

For the O.P.               : Mr. Swapan Kumar Bhattacherjee, Advocate.

 

 

Decided on: - 13/08/2015

                               

ORDER

                 Bibekananda Pramanik, President - Complainant case, in brief, is that he is a consumer under the O.P. having his electric service connection being Consumer ID no.200906548 and he had been paying electric bill regularly to the O.P.  At the time of installment of three phases electric connection, the O.P. installed three electric meters being nos.G-1203363, G-1203362 and G-1203361 respectively over the landed property of the petitioner.  After receiving the electric bill in the month of February 2015, the complainant noticed that the bill amount is very much high and after enquiry, he came to know that those three meters are not performing properly and the meters are also not showing any reading.  After knowing the same, the complainant lodged a complaint in the toll free office of the O.P.  Thereafter on 17/02/15, the complainant also made a complaint before the O.P. but the O.P. did not pay any heed. On the next month, the O.P. again  sent a bill of huge amount. Being a bona fide consumer,  the complainant paid the said bill and requested the O.P. to change the defective meters by installing new meters.

Contd…………..P/2

 

                                                          

( 2 )

O.P. failed to do so.  Hence, the complaint, praying for directing the O.P. to replace the defective meters by installing  new meters and to rectify the bill according to average consumption and for other reliefs, as per prayer of the complainant. 

                   O.P. has contested this case by filing a written statement.  Denying and disputing the case of the petition of complaint, it is the specific case of the O.P that after getting information regarding the defective meters of the service connection of the complainant, an enquiry was held by the O.P.  During such enquiry, the meter was checked and thereafter bill was generated on average basis as per norms of the Electricity Rules and without any objection, the complainant paid the bill with full satisfaction.  It is further submitted by the O.P., that all the said three meters have been replaced on 21/05/15 and the new meter no. is YXDi401.  It is stated that there is no negligence or latches on the part of the O.P. and therefore the question of deficiency of service does not arise. 

Point for decision

 

                               Is the complainant entitled to the reliefs, as prayed for?                      

 

Decision with reasons

At the very outset, it is to be mentioned here that neither the complainant nor the O.P. adduced any sort of evidence either oral or documentary,  but they have relied upon some documents although those were not proved as per law.  Be that as it may, we find that it is the main prayer of the complainant in this case for directing the O.P. for replacing the defective meters by installing new meters.  Regarding the said prayer, it has been submitted by the Ld. Lawyer of the O.P. at the time of hearing of argument that the complainant informed them about defective meters on 17/02/15.  After receiving such information, the O.P. enquired about the same and after performing necessary official formalities, they have replaced the said defective meter by a new meter.  Ld. Lawyer for the complainant admits the said fact but he submitted that delay has been caused in installing such new meter which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.  On this score, we find that there is no such inordinate delay in installing the new meter and therefore we cannot hold that there has been deficiency of service on the part of the O.P.  Regarding the allegation of inflated electric bills, we find that the O.P. has stated that after enquiry the bills was generated on average basis as per norms of the

Contd…………..P/3

                                                     

                                                                                                           ( 3 )

Electricity Act and without any objection, petitioner has paid the said bill.  At the time of argument, the complainant did not deny the said fact that he paid the bill amount without any objection.  In view of that and since we have already found that there was no deficiency of service or negligence on the part of the O.P., so the complainant’s case must fail and he is , therefore, not entitled to get any relief, as prayed for.                        

                                              Hence, it is,

                                                                Ordered,

                                                                                that the complaint case no.43/2015 is hereby dismissed on contest but in the circumstances without cost.          

Dictated & Corrected by me    

                Sd/-                                    Sd/-                                           Sd/-

           President                             Member                                     President

                                                                                                        D.C.D.R.F.

                                                                                                  Paschim Medinipur