District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum
Dakshin Dinajpur, W. Bengal
(Old Sub-Jail Municipal Market Complex, 2nd Floor, Balurghat Dakshin Dinajpur Pin - 733101)
Telefax: (03522)-270013
Present
Sri S. Ganguli - President-in-Charge
Miss. Swapna Saha - Member
Consumer Complaint No. 25/2016
Sri Sukesh Sarkar
S/o Late Anil Sarkar
Vill.: Sahapur , PO: Bhikahar, PS: Tapan,
Dist. Dakshin Dinajpur –733 142 (M) 9647744080……Complainant(s)
V-E-R-S-U-S
1. The Station Manager & A. E.
W.B.S.E.D.C. Ltd., Tapan Group Electric Supply
PO & PS: Tapan,
Dist-Dakshin Dinajpur - 733127
2. The Divisional Manager, Division Office
West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Ltd.
PO & PS: Balurghat,
Dist.: Dakshin Dinajpur-733101…………………Opposite Parties
Ld. Advocate(s):
For complainant ……………… - Sri Jiban Mondal
For OPs ……………… - Sri Sudip Chatterjee
Date of Filing : 20.09.2016
Date of Disposal : 25.01.2017
Contd…P/2
Judgment & Order dt. 25.01.2017
The gist of fact of the case is that the complainant is a resident within the jurisdiction of this Forum and cultivator by profession and he possesses some agricultural land and for the betterment of his agriculture fitted a shallow tube well for proper irrigation but it was unsuccessful due to low water level and thereafter he installed a submersible pump and applied for electric connection for running the same and the OPs after proper enquiry gave electric connection to the complainant, vide his Consumer I.D No:- 433078695, Tariff Class –C(T) and the complainant had been paying the electric bills regularly and periodically.
It is stated in the complaint petition that since the year 2010 the petitioner had been raising protest over the issue of inflated amount of bills sent by the OP No.1 and sometimes in the previous years he was exempted from paying electricity duty.
It is further stated in the complaint petition that on 14.12.2012 the complainant intimated the O.P No: 1 that the energy meter of the complainant had either been missing or theft and the OP No.1 in turn informed the O.C, Tapan PS in writing about the alleged incident in writing and the matter was registered in a G.D. book by the Police. The OP No.1 also requested the police to investigate the allegation.
It is further stated in the complaint petition that after the said incident the complainant was deprived of his electric connection but the O.P No. 1 had been sending electric bills periodically .The Complainant after 24.09.2014 received a bill, vide invoice No. 422000995854, bill period July, 2014, in which the previous reading date was mentioned as 27.06.2014, unit consumption ‘0’ (zero) energy charge Rs. 3459/- along with the outstanding amount Rs.1,81,735/-
Contd…P/3
The complainant thereafter on 6.11.2015 submitted prayer before the OP No.2 for the irregular, huge and unwanted amount of bills and requested for rectification. In the meantime he convinced the OP No.1 to install a new energy meter so that he could run the pump in order to irrigate his land. But getting no fruitful result the complainant once again on 30.7.2016 wrote a letter to the OP No.2 alleging all facts as stated above, but all were in vain. The complainant alleged for damage of his crops as he could not irrigate his land due to lack of electric connection and as a result he sustained huge loss approximately Rs. 1,00,000/- and complained of deficiency of service of the OPs.
The Complainant, therefore, lodged this complaint on 20.09.2016 before this Forum against the OPs and prayed for the reliefs, which are inter alia, as under:-
- To supply two poles, 21 coils of energy wire from transformer to STW connection.
- To install new energy meter to the shallow tube well in place of missing/theft meter.
- To send a rectified, recalculated fresh outstanding bills to the complainant which was unpaid till 14.12.2012 deducting all necessary late charges and penalties.
- To pay compensation to the tune of Rs.2, 00,000/- due to loss sustained by him for the last couple of years.
The Complainant, in support of his case filed the following documents by making annexure:-
- Copy of letter dated 30.07.2016 addressed to OP No.2
- Copy of letter dated 22.01.2010 sent to OP No.1.
- Copy of letter dated 28.04.2011 sent to OP No.1.
- Copy of letter dated 29.02.2102 sent to Asst. Director, C.A & F.B.P, D/Dinajpur region.
- Copy of letter dated 06.11.2015 sent to OP No.1.
- Copy of alleged bill dated 24.9.2014.
- Copy of letter dated 14.12.2012 sent to the O.C, Tapan P.S by the OP No.1 for alleged missing/theft.
Contd…P/4
The notices were served upon the OPs and they appeared before this Forum on 20.10.2016 and on a subsequent date they filed written version against the Complaint petition.
The gist of the written version is that the complainant had a service connection for his submersible pump since 4.4.2005 vide Consumer I.D No. 433078695 & service connection No. 8648/STW and the said connection was given to him after observing all formalities. Initially, the connection was an un-metered connection and four numbers of polls were erected at the time of installation of the service connection. Later on 30.04.2008 an energy meter was provided with the said service connection, vide Meter No: RSX 47182 and a bill for 6780 KWH was supplied to him until it was got defective. As the said meter was detected as defective it was replaced with new one vide Meter No. RSX43677 on 25.3.2009 and it was connected with the said connection until 14.12.2012, the date on which the complainant informed about the alleged missing/theft.
It is further contended that electric bill had been sent to him up to the consumption of 45568 KWH till the month November 2012.
The complainant had applied for installment payment of his due amount and agreed to pay Rs.1,12,765/- as on 27.1.2012 along with the LPSC and the OPs considered his application and gave him a chance to pay the same by installments and he paid one installment of Rs.14,095/- on 20.2.2012 after lapse of due date of payment which was to be made on or before 06.02.2012 and further he consumed 11655 KWH of electricity for the whole season.
The complainant had paid only one installment as aforesaid. He did not pay the subsequent installments as agreed to. The complainant had full knowledge that his unpaid installment amount was Rs.98,670/- and throughout the season he consumed the electricity by running his pump and his consumption was justified.
Contd…P/5
It was further contended that an amount of Rs. 39,022/- had been claimed since the date of installation and Rs.1,37,692/- had been claimed before the theft of meter and the complainant used the electric energy further for the subsequent season, but the complainant till date paid only Rs.56,361/-. It is further contended that the OPs have evidence which they procured through video photography by which they can show that the complainant used to sell water to the neighboring cultivators.
The Ops did not file any document in respect of their claims as stated in the written version.
The complainant during hearing submitted that he received the bill amounting to Rs.1,85,667/- and the billing date was 24.9.2014, wherein the outstanding amount has been shown as Rs.1,81,735.08 and he alleges for inflated bills and demands for reassessment of his consumption and rectification of his bill and he is ready to pay the bills which he actually consumed or the bills which will be generated after reassessment. He further submitted that he is a poor cultivator and it would be not possible for him to pay all the outstanding dues at a time and prays for installment payment.
The OPs raised the question of limitation point as the matter of dispute was for the year 2012 but the complainant filed the case in the year 2016 and submitted during hearing that a bill amounting to Rs.1,12,765/- was sent to the complainant up to the period 27.01.2012 and thereafter reconnection was made after providing him installment facility and as he had paid the first installment amounting to Rs.14,095/- on 6.2.2012 and agreed to pay the outstanding amount by installment, it was presumed that he had no dispute about the bills sent to him. But despite giving him the installment facility he did not pay the subsequent installments .The OPs submitted that the service connection of the OPs was alive till November 2014 and as per his consumption bill was sent to him. If the consumption is calculated till the date of disconnection it would be higher than the last bill sent.
Contd…P/6
The complainant, in counter, submitted that as the OPs sent a bill in the year 2014 and several correspondences were made by the complainant by the time, the instant case is not barred by limitation and it is quite maintainable.
Considering the complaint petition, written version, documents annexed and pleadings of both sides, the following points have been framed :-
- Whether the complainant is a consumer or not?
- Whether the case is barred by the limitation or not?
- Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs or not?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from this forum as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Here in the case the first point is to be decided whether the complainant is a consumer of the OPs or not.
From the complaint petition and the written version, it can be easily derived that the complainant got electricity connection for running his submersible pump from the OPs on 04.04.2005 and his consumer ID number is 433078695, Tariff class-C(T) and he had been paying the electricity charges .
Initially, it was an un-metered service connection, but later on it was provided with an energy meter by the OPs vide meter No: RSX 47182, which had been replaced with a new one vide meter No: RSX 43677, as the former one got defective.
The OPs sent a bill amounting to Rs.1,12,765/- as on 27.01.2012 along with the LPSC to the complainant and as per the prayer of the complainant the OPs agreed to receive it in installments and accordingly the complainant paid Rs.14,095/- on 20.02.2012 as first installment .But subsequently the complainant again detected as
Contd…P/7
defaulter due to non-payment of out- standing bills. Lastly, the OPs sent a bill amounting to Rs.1,85,667/- on 24.09.2014,wherein the outstanding amount was shown as Rs.1,81,735.08, which according to the complainant is exaggerated ,inflated ,whimsical unreasonable ,but according to the belligerent OPs it is real, accurate and as per proper consumption of electricity of the complainant in respect of his service connection.
Here it can be easily deduced that the OPs are service providers and the complainant is a consumer as per the meaning of Sec-2(1)(o) & Sec-2(1)(d) of the C.P. Act 1986 respectively, as the OPs were supplying electrical energy to the complainant and the complainant availed the services for a consideration.
Hence, the first point is decided in favor of the complainant.
Now we have come to the second point i.e. whether the case is barred by limitation or not.
From the materials on record, we find that the case has been filed on 20.09.2016. The cause of action of the case arose on 24.09.2014 when the OPs lastly supplied the bill to the complainant amounting to Rs.1, 85,667/-.
There were albeit earlier disputes between the parties due to non-payment of outstanding dues of electricity charges and the complainant made several correspondences but the case has been practically filed due to the alleged inflated bill supplied to the complainant on 24.09.2014 and if calculated, it is filed within 2 years from the date of the cause of action, and within the period of Limitation as defined U/S 24A of the C.P.Act 1986 and therefore the case is quite maintainable.
Hence this point too decided in favor of the complainant.
Contd…P/8
Now the crux of the matter is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops or not.
To decide the same, again we have to retrace or reminiscence the facts of the case.
From the elaborative discussions as made above, we can determine that the complainant ,being as consumer of the OPs ,had an outstanding amount due against his service connection ,as stated above, and a bill amounting to Rs.1,12,765/was sent to him as per his consumption up to the date 27.01.2012 which included LPSC. At the instance of the complainant, the OPs converted it in flexible installments and being agreed into the complainant paid the first installment amounting to Rs.14,095/- on 06.02.2012 but he did not pay the subsequent installments. As he agreed to pay the outstanding dues in installments and made a part payment, so it can be presumed that the complainant did not have any dispute regarding his bill up to that period.
It is evident that the service connection of the complainant remained alive beyond the period of alleged missing or theft of energy meter and for the period between 2012 to 2014 the complainant consumed electricity in respect of his service connection.
The OPs lastly sent a bill amounting to Rs.1,85,667/- on 24.09.2014 wherein the outstanding amount was shown as Rs.1,81,735.08, which was also unpaid by the complainant. It is crystal clear that had he been paid the electricity bills regularly and periodically, the bills could not have accumulated in such a huge amount of money. Apart from that as the service connection was alive up to November 2014, there will be additional bills to be paid by the Complainant, but it is beyond our discussion and determination as we have to be confined within the cause of action of the case.
Contd…P/9
It is surprise to mention here that the complainant has not filed or annexed any payment receipt in respect of his service connection or showed any document, which could reflect his payment of electric bills.
Considering the above we hold the view that the complainant was irregular in respect of payment of electricity bills and as such a huge amount was accumulated as outstanding dues and we find that the service connection of the complainant was disconnected for his own latches and there was no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
Hence, this point is decided in favor of the OPs.
The complainant is a poor cultivator and his sustenance is totally depended upon the production of crops. If he cannot irrigate his land properly and produce crops his toil will be unsuccessful. During hearing he submitted that he needs electricity connection for running his submersible pump for proper irrigation of his land but he complained of inflated bills and further submitted for reassessment of his consumption and desires to pay the same in 24 equal installments payable every month.
However, as the anomaly relating to bills raised by the complainant the OPs are directed to assess the consumption of the complainant of his service connection afresh and send him a rectified bill.
Further as the complainant is a poor cultivator and he needs electricity connection for running his submersible pump and as he is willing to pay the bills after re-assessment is made and considering his financial stringency as stated during hearing ,it would be beneficial for him to pay the bills in equal installments and accordingly it is directed that the complainant may pay the electricity bill, which will be supplied to him after re-assessment, in 24 equal installments payable every month since after receiving the bill.
Contd…P/10
It is further directed that after receiving the full and final payment, the OPs shall reconnect the service connection of the complainant and shall provide a new energy meter along with all necessary equipments necessary to get the service connection, so that the complainant can irrigate his land and pursue his livelihood smoothly.
However liberty is given to the complainant to pay the entire amount at a time, if possible for him, within the period of installments. He can even pay the installments in multiple, if he desires so and in such a case the OPs are directed to re-connect the service connection of the complainant after receiving full payment and provide him energy meter and necessary equipments.
As there is no evidence adduced by the complainant relating to damage, destroy or loss of his crops no compensation is, therefore, awarded.
Therefore, all the points are discussed exhaustively and elaborately.
Hence it is
O R D E R E D
that the instance case is allowed on contest in part but without any cost.
OPs are directed to reassess the electric consumption of the complainant in respect of his service connection and send him a fresh bill within 90 days from the date of this order.
It is directed that the complainant may pay the electricity bill, which will be supplied to him after re-assessment, in 24 equal installments payable every month since after receiving the bill.
It is further directed that after receiving the full and final payment, the OPs shall reconnect the service connection of the complainant and shall provide a new energy meter along with all necessary equipments necessary to get the service connection, so that the complainant can irrigate his land and pursue his livelihood smoothly.
Contd…P/11
However, liberty is given to the complainant to pay the entire amount at a time, if possible for him, within the period of installments. He can even pay the installments in multiple, if he desires so and in such a case the OPs are directed to re-connect the service connection of the complainant after receiving full payment and provide him energy meter and necessary equipments.
Let plain copies of this order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost.
Dictated & corrected
…….……….…….
(S. Ganguli)
President-in-Charge
I concur,
…………..……
(S. Saha)
Member
- Date when free copy was issued ……………………
- Date of application for certified copy ……………………
- Date when copy was made ready ……………………
- Date of delivery ……………………
FREE COPY [Reg. 18(6)]
- Mode of dispatch ……………………
- Date of dispatch ……………………
-x-
