This case has been filed U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant, Kazi Nurul Haque.

The complainant’s case in short is that he has a Mini Deep Tube well for irrigation of his agricultural lands.  He is a cultivator by profession.  The petitioner consumed electricity for operating the said Mini Deep Tube well having consumer ID No.167311023 and meter No.RGX85795.  It is to be mentioned that beside the petitioner the opposite party supplied electricity another two persons for running their Mini Deep Tube well namely Bamapada Malik and Haran Chandra Santra from the same electricity post.   

The meter of the Mini Deep Tube well of the complainant became out of order/defective/stopped before a considerable period and it was noticed by the opposite party.  Thereafter, the connection was disconnected in the month of August, 2016.  But even after that the opposite party has sent bill for the subsequent period.  The petitioner has paid Rs.72,500/- on 10.2.2017 towards arrear charges and requested the opposite party to change the meter and reconnect the electric connection.  But in vain.  Till now it is lying in same condition.  But opposite party sent the bill regularly.  The petitioner received the bill for the month of November, 2017.  The petitioner vide his letter dated 14.12.2017 requested the opposite party to reconnect the electricity.  But opposite party did not connect the electricity to the meter of the complainant. 

The complainant is a poor cultivator and it is his only source of income.  He has to arrange irrigation of his land from his said Mini Tube well.  He has suffered a sea loss for long period of disconnection and again he will suffer loss for not cultivating the Boro Paddy.  Finding no other alternative the complainant filed this case before this Forum with a prayer to direct the opposite party to change the meter and to reconnect the electric line, to exempt the petitioner from the liability of paying the bill amount for the disconnection period i.e. from the month of August, 2016.

The opposite party contested the case by filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegation as leveled against him.  This opposite party submitted that the petitioner is a consumer of holding meter of a Mini Deep Tube Well and has been using the same and consuming electricity accordingly.  Subsequently the petitioner intimated about the said electric meter that the same was defective since June, 2016 and so the calculation of consumption generated by SAP system and bills were sent to the petitioner accordingly.  Thereafter due to non-payment of outstanding amount the said meter was disconnected on that period. The petitioner asked for zero unit bill on February 17, 2017, the billing month.  Thereafter the petitioner paid partial payment (OSD amount of Rs.72,500/-) on 10.2.2017 and accordingly the said meter was reconnected at that time.

Thereafter from March, 2017 to October, 2017 again estimated unit was claimed as per SAP system due to defective meter condition and due to further non-payment the said meter was further disconnected on November, 2017 due to non-payment of OSD amount. As a result the OSD amount is reached to Rs.1,28,235.13 as on January, 2018.

The petitioner suppressing all the facts filed the above harrassive case without any basis. This opposite party strongly denied the entire statements paragraph wise at a full length. Practically the petition is not maintainable as it relates to business purpose willfully. Hence, the case.

Both sides filed evidence on affidavit and written notes of argument which are taken into consideration for passing final order.

ISSUES/POINTS   FOR   CONSIDERATION

1). Whether the Complainant Kazi Nurul Haque is a ‘Consumer’ of the opposite party?

2).Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?

3).Whether the O.Ps carried on unfair trade practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards the Complainant?

4).Whether the complainant proved his case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to him?

DECISION WITH REASONS

 In the light of discussions here in above we find that the issues/points should be decided based on the above perspectives.

(1).Whether the Complainant Kazi Nurul Haque is a ‘Consumer’ of the opposite party?

 From the materials on record it is transparent that the Complainant is a “Consumer” as provided by the spirit of section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. As the complainant being the customer is consuming electricity as provided by the opposite party company and he is paying bills so the petitioner is a consumer of the opposite party and it is admitted by the opposite party Company being the service provider.  

(2).Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?

Both the complainant and opposite party are residents/carrying on business within the district of Hooghly. The complaint valued within Rs.20,00,000/- limit of this Forum. So, this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case.

(3).Whether the opposite party carried on Unfair Trade Practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards the Complainant?

 The opposite party being the largest Electric Supply Company throughout the state having a  lot of offices, power stations, substations and power generating stations decorated with a lot of expert hands and running its business with goodwill for a long period and providing/rendering service for development of society as well as implementing a lot of Govt. programs. So the role of OP Company for the development of the society is unquestionable.

The opposite party herein is the Assistant Engineer & Station Manager of an office of the largest electric supply company throughout the State of W.B. The Company WBSEDCL running its business throughout the state except territorial jurisdiction of Kolkata Corporation. The opposite party Company is providing power in the rural areas in different projects for a long period. That is why the consumers in the rural areas are highly grateful to the Company. While providing powers throughout the state it also suffers from many discrepancies. Like not sending/ preparing bills in due time or sending bills for a period when the powers are discontinued and not taking reading regularly and not replacing the defective meter for a long period as a result the consumers suffer from paying accumulated units at a higher rate and fails to provide powers to the consumers after taking quotation money. As a result the consumers suffer a lot and make their grievances for remedy before the appropriate Forums. The inaction/negligence/discrepancies of the OP Company tantamount to deficiency of service for which the consumers are suffering a lot.

The complainant being a consumer of opposite party, consume power for running his Mini Deep Tube Well for cultivation. Dispute cropped up in between the parties, when the opposite party sends electric bills during the period of disconnection for nonpayment of outstanding dues. The complainant several times caught the admiration of the opposite party in respect of defective meter. But the utterance of the complainant becomes unheeded. Inspite of defective meter, the opposite party used to send electric bills regularly without changing the defective meter. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.72,500/- on 10.2.2017 toward  arrear charges and requested to change the electric meter. It is the case of the petitioner that since after disconnection in the month of August, 2016 he is not bound to pay any charges as subsequent bill is in fructuous and illegal. Due to lack of power in his deep well he suffered loss for not cultivating the Boro Paddy. So, the complainant being a consumer of opposite party u/s- 2(1)(d)(ii) of C.P. Act, 1986 filed the instant complaint before this Forum praying  directions upon the opposite party as incorporated in the prayer portion of the complaint petition.

It is the case of the opposite party that the petitioner being the owner of a Mini Deep-Tube Well has been consuming power from the alleged meter and on June, 2016, the petitioner intimated that the meter is defective one. So, the opposite party estimated bill generating in SAP system from June, 2016 to January, 2017. Due to non-payment of electricity bill the opposite party disconnected power and the complainant paid partial OSD amount of Rs. 72.500/- on 10.2.2017 and the meter was reconnected. Again for the consumption period of March, 2017 to October 2017 the opposite party estimated bill generating in SAP system due to defective meter condition and for no payment, the power connection of the complainant was disconnected owing to nonpayment of OSD amount. The OSD amount reaches to Rs.1,28,235.13/- as on January, 2018.  According to written argument of the opposite party, the petitioner has been paid Rs.1,13,731/- as well as reconnection charges of Rs.100 on 29.8.2018. It is also alleged by the opposite party that the petitioner filed the instant case for obtaining illegal gain by nonpayment of huge amount consumed as electrical charges and the petitioner did not disclose the said facts rather suppressed the material facts. So the petitioner is not entitled to claim for any relief and practically petitioner‘s claim based upon billing amount which is not maintainable before this Forum and liable to be rejected. 

After perusing the electric bills of the opposite party dated 13.01.2017 it appears that unit consumed is NIL, energy charge is Rs.2712.26 and taking other charges the bill amount rose to Rs.96622.00, the last payment details as Rs.40,000/- as on 15.01.2016 but the Meter RGX 85795 seems defective. The electric bill dated 16.2.2017 speaks that energy charge is Rs.6391/- and taking other charges including the LPSC charge of Rs.14,908/- the amount due within the date is Rs.46,344/- but the complainant paid Rs.72,500/- on 10.02.2017. The bill dated 13.05.2017 it appears that unit consumed is NIL, energy charge is Rs.20315.00 and taking other charges the bill amount rose to Rs.79,177.00, the last payment details as Rs.72,500/- as on 10.02.2017 but the Meter RGX 85795 seems defective.  The complainant files payment receipt of Rs.79,290/- for the  bill period of May,2017 and another payment receipt of Rs.34,441.00 for bill period of May, 2018 and both the bills are paid on 29.8.2018 including disconnection and reconnection charges of Rs.100/-. According to the complaint petition that the complainant paying bills for consuming power in his Mini Deep Tube Well but allegation is that the opposite party charged electric bills during the period of disconnection. The consumed unit is ‘o’ but the energy charge as well as LPSC imposed as a result the complainant compelled to pay a huge amount as outstanding. The opposite party failed to give satisfactory explanation in respect of changing defective meter but they imposed energy charges and others during the period of disconnection which tantamount to deficiency of service coupled with unfair trade practice. Opposite Party alleged that they have generated electric bills in SAP system as the meter is defective one. But reason not known to us why the opposite party failed to replace defective meter by a new one. As there is specific allegation regarding the defective meter for which the complainant compelled to pay huge amount. It is also pertinent to mention that the complainant used to pay energy charges when the complainant consumed ‘O’ units. From the above observation this Forum is in the opinion that the opposite party by not changing the defective meter although they have knowledge of it committed deficiency of service towards its consumer.  

 It is crystal clear from the above discussion that the opposite party is deficient in providing service to its complainant as such the complaint petition is deserved to be allowed with cost and compensation.

4). Whether the complainant proved his case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to him?

The discussion made herein before, we have no hesitation to come in a conclusion that the complainant abled to prove his case. So the Opposite Party is liable to pay compensation to this complainant.

ORDER

 Hence, ordered that the complaint case being No.254/2017 be and the same is allowed on contest against the opposite party with a litigation cost of Rs.5000/-.

The Opposite Party is directed to replace the defective meter by a new one and reconnect the impugned power supply of the complainant. The said opposite party is also directed not to collect outstanding dues as arrear accumulated units & bills generated during the period of disconnection as per reading of the defective meter.

The opposite party is further directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- for causing mental pain and agony of this complainant.

 All the directions are to be complied within 30 days from the passing of this order.

 Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their Ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/ sent by ordinary post for information & necessary action.