DATE OF FILING : 26.11.2014.
DATE OF S/R : 29.12.2014.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 28.03.2016.
Sri Anath Paul,
son of Shalendro Nath Paul,
village & P.O. Bhandergacha, P.S. Amta,
District Howrah,
PIN 711 401.. ………... …..…………………………...……….…... COMPLAINANT.
1. The Station Manager,
Amta Customer Care Centre,
WBSEDCL, Mallick Market, Kalata, Amta,
Howrah 711401.
2. The DE and Divisional Manager,
Howrah Division II,
WBSEDCL, Swapna Manzil, Makardah,
Howrah 711409. …………………………………………………. Opposite Parties.
P R E S E N T
Hon’ble President : Shri B. D. Nanda, M.A. ( double ), L.L.M., WBHJS.
Hon’ble Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
Hon’ble Member : Shri A.K. Pathak.
F I N A L O R D E R
- The instant case was filed by complainant U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 wherein the complainant has prayed for direction upon the o.ps. to refund Rs. 1,349/- deposited on 10.10.2013 by him as replacement charge of old meter with interest, to pay compensation Rs. 50,000/- along with litigation costs and other order or orders.
- The brief facts of the case is that complainant has been enjoying electricity through meter being no. 55474257, consumer no. X 01-500, Service connection no. D / 9542 vide Annexure A. On 16.7.2013 complainant lodged a complaint with the o.ps. regarding the mal functioning of the said meter and o.p. also carried out their inspection on 22.7.2013 vide Annexures B & C collectively. It is alleged by the complainant that for such replacement o.ps. charged Rs. 1,349/- which complainant initially refused to pay. But ultimately finding no other alternative, complainant paid the same and a new meter vide Annexures D & E collectively was installed by the o.ps. having meter no. B2271244, Type A ( DM – R), Inst. No. 11384444, Con. I/D 135063213. Thereafter complainant lodged a complaint before Consumer Affairs Department Howrah on l2.12.2013 for getting the said money back vide Annexure F collectively but no fruitful result came out. So as per the direction of the Consumer Affairs Department complainant filed this instant complaint with the aforesaid prayers.
- Notices were served upon the o.ps. Both the o.ps. appeared and filed written version. So the case was heard on contest.
- Upon pleadings of parties two points arose for determination :
i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
- Both the points are taken up together for consideration. We have carefully gone through the written versions of the o.ps. and noted their contents. It is the specific plea of the o.ps. that at the time of inspection on 22.7.2013, it was detected by the persons of the o.ps. that outgoing terminal of the old meter and the body of the said meter were burnt out due to use of excessive load by the consumer, here in the complainant. And the genuinety of such claim is proved by the Annexure ‘C’ which is the Technical Inspection Report dated 22.7.2013. And as per the rules and the mandate of the statue, o.p. raised quotation for replacement of the old meter to install a new one. And only after the payment made by the complainant, o.ps. could install the new meter and replace the old one and they have done as per the norms of WBERC ( Notification 46, Cl. No. 11.4 ) Accordingly as per the request letter dated 16.7.2013 made by the complainant vide Annexure ‘B’, o.ps. did the needful to redress the grievance of the complainant. Accordingly, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the o.ps. Here we take a pause. In support of o.ps.’ such contention, they have not filed any document to show that they are entitled to demand any amount for replacement of old defective meter by a new one. And it is well understood that complainant had to deposit Rs. 1,349/- on 10.10.2013 with the o.ps. under severe compulsion. And on being called up by o.p. no. 2 for hearing on 15.7.2014, complainant was required to submit reply against the questionnaire of o.ps. vide Annexure. And o.p. no. 2 wrote a letter to o.p. no. 1 on 16.4.2014 seeking the observation of o.p. no. 1 on the reply filed by the complainant on 15.7.2014 to o.p. no. 2. But o.p. no. 1 did not submit any such observation in this regard which shows that o.p. no. 1 had nothing to put forward in his favour. Moreover it is the common knowledge that whenever any inspection to be conducted by the o.ps., the respective consumer herein the complainant or any of his or her authorized representative should remain present. But the inspection report dated 22.7.2013 does not bear any signature of the complainant and from the reply dated 15.7.2014 of the complainant, it is substantiated by reply no. 4. It is also our common knowledge that at the time of installation of the meter for the first time by the o.ps., o.ps. used to take the charges for such meter. So for replacement of any meter, o.ps. are not at all entitled to take charge twice. Therefore, we are of the view that this is not a fit case, where the prayer of the complainant should be allowed in part. Both the points are accordingly disposed of.
In the result, the complaint case succeeds.
Court fee paid is correct.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 610 of 2014 ( HDF 610 of 2014 ) be and the same is allowed on contest in part without costs as against the O.Ps.
The o.ps. are jointly and severally directed to refund Rs. 1,349/- to the complainant within one month from the date of this order i.d., the entire amount shall carry an interest @ 8% per annum till full realization.
No order as to compensation.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, free of costs.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( Jhumki Saha)
Member, C.D.R.F., Howrah.
