West Bengal

Hooghly

CC/136/2016

Sri Subir Ghosh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Stn. Manager, Chandannagar GR. E/S. & Ors. - Opp.Party(s)

Smt. Anupama Kundu

20 Sep 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, HOOGHLY
CC OF 2013
PETITIONER
VERS
OPPO
 
Complaint Case No. CC/136/2016
 
1. Sri Subir Ghosh
Buroshibtala, Chinsurah
Hooghly
West Bengal
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. The Stn. Manager, Chandannagar GR. E/S. & Ors.
Barabazar, chandannagar
Hooghly
West Bengal
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Sri Biswanath De PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE Smt. Devi Sengupta MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Sri Samaresh Kr. Mitra MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
Dated : 20 Sep 2017
Final Order / Judgement

The case of the complainant in a nutshell is that the complainant has an electric connection in his shop room having consumer ID no.163108474. The further case of the complainant is that the electric meter in question is defective and the complainant has informed the same to the OP authority. The complainant lodged a written complainant on 13.07.2016 and 20.07.2016 to the Op’s along with copy of meter card, previous bill. Current bill and other related b ills and also prayed for replacement of his defective meter but with no effect. The complainant further states that the meter reading card the reading date is 11.07.16 which is true but in the Bill the meter reading dated is 9.7.2016, therefore it can be seen that there is anomalies regarding the reading of meter. Hence the complainant has come before the Forum for redressal and prays for relief as mentioned in his petition of complaint.

            The Op no.1 contested the case by filing written version denying inter alia all material allegations . That the case of the oP is that since  the date of connection no abnormal reading was ever recorded in the meter of the complainant. Even no abnormality was found in the meter at the time of inspection made by the technical staff of this CCC in the presence of the employee of the complainant on 18.7.2016. The said inspection was made after this OP received a letter from the complainant on 13.7.2016 , requesting him to make an inspection of the meter. A written reply was given to the complainant on 22.7.2016 stating that the meter was Okay and running in good condition. At the time of inspection it was found that the complainant had 2 fans, 2 tube lights and 3 CFLs in his shop. Since the mete3r is no defective, so the question of replacing the same does not arise.      

 

                                                                                           

            Complainant has filed 1) copy of Legal notice dated 27.7.2016 2) Copy of letter dated 13.7.16 3) copy of letter dated 20.7.2016 4) copy of electric bill dated 17.7.16 5) copy of intimation letter dated 22.7.16, 6) copy of letter dated 21.7.16 7) copy of meter reading card etc. Complainant also filed Affidavit in chief and Written Notes of Argument. Op filed one Meter reading card and one copy of W.P. 15853(W) of 2013 . The oP also filed Brief Notes of argument.

                                                                 POINTS FOR DECISION

  1. Whether the complainant is a consumer?
  2. If there is any deficiency on the part of the oP ?
  3. If complainant is entitled to get any relief?

DECISION WITH REASONS :

Point no.1

            It is admitted fact that the complainant is a consumer under the Opposite party u/s 2(d)(ii) of the C.P.Act, 1986. So, this point need not be discussed further.

Point no. 2 and 3

Both the points are taken up together for easiness of discussion.

    The dispute between the complainant and the oP can be raised to a point which is that the meter installed in the premises of the complainant was defective. To that effect , the Op conducted enquiry and the enquiry officer submitted report which was conveyed by the Op to

                                                                        

Subir Ghosh, the complainant herein that in terms of the letter dated 13.7.2016 the enquiry was made and inspection of the meter was done. The inspection was done by the technical staff on 18.7.2016 and it was found that meter and reading is okay and meter reading was 2978 as on 18.7.2016. This letter was conveyed to the complainant and after that the complainant filed this case. But in the complaint , the suppressed this fact of letter conveyed to him on 22.7.2016 with their Memo no. along with the electric bill. So, the allegation of the complainant is unable to stand and it is revealed that , that inspection was done on the basis of the application dated 13.7.2016 (copy of the letter has been filed by the complainant). So, the record does not depict any lethargy on the part of the OP rather show that the Op responded quickly and inspection of meter was done within a span of one month. Accordingly, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the oP. Hence it is –

                                                            ORDERED

            That the Consumer Complaint no. 136 of 2016 be and the same is dismissed on contest but no order as to cost.

            Let a copy of this order be made over to the parties free of cost.

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Sri Biswanath De]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE Smt. Devi Sengupta]
MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Sri Samaresh Kr. Mitra]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.