Order No. 19 Dt. 21.07.2015
This is a case u/s 12 of the C.P. Act,1986 filed by the petitioner, Sri Sailen Barman, Son of Late Rajendra Barman, Resident of Tapsahar (11 Mile), P.O. Rahutara, P.S. Habibpur, District – Malda. praying for an order for rectification of Electric Bill, which was sent by the O.P. amounting to Rs. 170199/- and a compensation of Rs. 20000/- and other reliefs.
The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of a husking mill and he has electric connection being ID No. 342035440. Since inception of his electric meter he regularly paid the bill as per the unit consumption. He paid the electric bill till the month of July, 2014.
On 24.05.2014 the Electric Department came to the said mill according to their own will and they fixed a meter of their own replacing the old meter and on 07.08.2014 they sent a bill amounting to Rs. 170199/-. The petitioner raised objection of the said bill and filed a written objection on 16.08.2014 to the O.P. and the O.P. received the same.
The Electric Department has a habit of squeezing money by such a fashion and the bill of the O.P. is erroneous. So he filed this case in this Forum to replace the meter which was fixed by the O.P. in his husking mill premises and asked for correction of bills.
O.P. filed written objection denying all the material allegations contending inter alia that one raid conducted by the high official of the Electric Department and they visited and inspected the meter of the consumer on 08.05.2014 and found PD Circuit disconnected. The meter was disconnected on 24.05.2012 and as a result of which consumption of B phase i.e. one of the phase of the 3 phase meter has not been reflected in the reading. The reading was 328338 on 24.05.2014. After deducting the initial reading they adjust the unit by dividing with two and sent the bill as per their consumption which was not reflected on bills. They also stated that there is no complaint by the petitioner about the meter on the earlier occasions and they take false plea and filed a false case.
On the above cases of the parties the following issues are framed:-
- Is the case 57/2014 is maintainable in its present form?
- Whether the petitioner has any cause of action to file the case?
- Whether the Insurance Company rightly repudiated the claim of the petitioner?
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to get any relief as prayed for?
: DECISION WITH REASONS::
Issue Nos. 1,2,3 and 4
All the issues are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity of discussion and to skip of reiteration and also all these issues are interrelated and interdependent.
To prove this case petitioner examined himself as P.W.-1 and another person named Raja Rajak as P.W.-2. O.P. did not adduce any witness but filed some documents which are marked as Ext. A series. Beside this the petitioner filed some documents which are marked Exts.1 to 6 i.e. Electric Bills from January, 2014, February, March etc. (Ext.1 series), Token Receipt (Ext.-2 series), Yellow Card (Ext.-3), Bill dt.07.08.2014 (Ext.-4 series), Letter of complaint to the Station Master (Ext.-5), Certificate of Raja Rajak (Ext.-6).
This petitioner P.W.-1 stated in his evidence that he is the owner of a husking mill and he has electric connection being ID No. 342035440. Since inception of his electric meter he regularly paid the bill as per the unit consumption. He paid the electric bill till the month of July, 2014. On 24.05.2014 the Electric Department came to the said mill according to their own will and they fixed a meter of their own replacing my old meter and on 07.08.2014 sent a bill amounting to Rs. 170199/-. The petitioner raised objection of the said bill and filed a written objection on 16.08.2014 to the O.P. and the O.P. received the same. The petitioner also stated that the Electric Department has a habit of squeezing money by such a fashion and the bill of the O.P. is erroneous. So it appears that he filed this case in this Forum not to pay the amount and to replace the meter which was fixed by the O.P. in his husking mill premises and he admits in his cross-examination that his connection in the said mill is an industrial connection and the rate of unit of electric consumption is higher than that of domestic and commercial unit. He admits that his connection in the mill is a three phase connection and he runs the husking mill for crushing wheat and paddy and the meter was kept in his house. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the Electric Department came and with the consent of the petitioner they entered his house and the petitioner knew for what reasons the electric department placed a new meter instead of the presence of his old meter. He further admits in his cross-examination that the electric connection of the said husking mill was three phase and it was three phase connection meter and he also admits the replacement of new meter instead of old meter though he did not make any complaint prior to that.
The PW-2 is a person who claimed to be an electrician and he has knowledge about electric connection of husking mill. However, he categorically stated in his cross-examination that he never visited the place where the husking mill of the petitioner situated and he has no document to show that he is an expert in the said field. So his evidence does not help the petitioner in any manner in this case.
At the time of argument Ld.Advocate of the petitioner tried to draw our attention that the petitioner had no knowledge regarding taking out of the phase of the meter and also had no knowledge of the recording from yellow card by Electric Dept. and their sending bills according to said units of consumption but he deposited the amount. It is true that at the same time we are getting that the petitioner did not state anything regarding the defect of the meter and the shortcoming of phase which is already in his premises and he admits that at the time of installation of electric meter his connection was three phase connection. We are also getting from the evidence that the Electric Department placed a new meter on 08.05.2014 and Jagannath Burman, representative of Sri Sailen Burman, the petitioner, received the copy of the same by putting his signature and this document was not filed by the petitioner in this case and suppressed this fact by taking a plea that the Electric Department fixed a meter and he has no knowledge about it.
This Ext. –A series which was filed by the O.P., categorically speaks that the petitioner received the copy of the same but he did not file the same in the Forum. The xerox copy of the yellow card also speaks that there is a noting but this portion is also not filed by the petitioner in this Forum.
The petitioner has no allegation against the meter of his own but the true fact is that one phase was disconnected and the meter did not show the consumption of the unit of the petitioner in the meter box. The Electric Department rightly enquired and claimed the amount as per the average reading and claimed the amount of Rs. 170199/- and there is no deficiency or illegality on the part of the Electric Department. The petitioner thus fails to prove his case.
In the result, the claim case fails.
Court fee paid on the petition is correct.
Hence, it is ordered
that the D.F.C. Case No. 57/2014 be and the same is hereby dismissed without cost.
A copy of this order be given to both parties free of cost.
