THE PRESIDENT

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

 

CASE No. CC- 53  of  2020

 

Sri Rana Pratap Nath Bhaumik, 

S/O- Sri Usha Ranjan Nath Bhaumik,

Radhamadhav Sarani, 

P.O. Dhaleswar, P.S. East Agartala,

Agartala, West Tripura. ….…...................Complainant.

 

-VERSUS-

 

1. The Tripura Natural Gas Company Ltd. 

Represented by the Chairman,

Shilpa Nigam Bhawan,

Khejur Bagan, P.O. Kunjaban, 

P.S. New Capital Complex, 

District- West Tripura, Agartala,

 

2. The Deputy Manager(O & M),

Tripura Natural Gas Company Ltd.,

Shilpa Nigam Bhawan, Khejur Bagan, 

P.O. Kunjaban, New Capital Complex, 

District- West Triprua, Agartala.  …..................Opposite Parties.

 

 

 

     __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI RUHIDAS PAL

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

Dr (SMT) BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SRI SAMIR GUPTA,

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

C O U N S E L

 

For the Complainant : In person

      

For the O.P. : Smt. Paramita Dhar,

  Learned Advocate.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON : 17.06.2022

 

J U D G M E N T

The case arises for being the complaint filed by Sri Rana Pratap Nath Bhaumik U/S 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the O.P. Tripura Natural Gas Company Ltd.  for getting relief. 

The case of the complainant in brief is that he is a consumer of the Tripura Natural Gas Company Ltd. (in short TNGCL) having Metre No. 14424065 & consumer code No- 0805987. It is stated by the complainant that the O.P. TNGCL issued gas consumption bill vide invoice No- TNGCL/GB/ECS dated 22.06.2020 for the period from 30.03.2020 to 30.05.2020. From the said bill it is transpired that total 62 units were consumed for that period i.e., for two months and Rs.1414.00/- has to be paid within the due date for the said 62 units. It is transpired  from the previous invoice no. TNGCL/GB/ECS/2398 dated  21.04.2020  for month of 03/2020 that 40 units gas was consumed for the period from 30.01.2020 to 30.03.2020 and bill raised for an amount of Rs.900/-. Invoice dated 21.04.2020 & 22.06.2020 it is proved that the respondents have calculated excess 22 units  for the succeeding 2 months than the earlier invoice dated 21.04.2020. Thereafter on 21.07.2020 the complainant paid Rs. 1414.00 against the said bill with objection. After recording of 1344 units conducted on 05.06.2020 by the  TNGCL authorities, the complainant captured the photos  and recorded the metre reading of gas in respect of metre no.14424065 on 22.07.2020 & 30.07.2020. From the photographs and metre reading it is conspicuous that on 22.07.2020 metre recorded consumption of 01377 units & 01383 units on 30.07.2020 respectively. After calculation it is proved that only 39 units of gas was consumed for the period from 05.06.2020 to 30.07.2020. Thus, the O.P. compelled to pay the bill for excess 22 units of gas consumption. Thus the O.P. adopted unfair and deceptive trade practice against providing service to the consumer i.e., the complainant. The complainant further submitted that the O.P. adopted unfair trade practice for the second time also. That on previous complaint dated 16.08.2019 the respondent adjusted an amount of Rs.387/- with the next bill of excess billing of 18 units in respect of bill dated 24.07.2020. The O.P. till now have been compelling the consumer to pay minimum charge of 20 units of gas which is not being consumed by the consumer every month. On 22.07.2020 the complainant served a demand notice upon the O.Ps and requested to review the invoice dated 22.06.2020 and to replace the meter and to refund the amount charged in excess of 22 units said on 21.07.2020. But all in vain. Hence the complainant filed this complaint before this Commission for getting relief.      

 

2. After getting notice from this Commission the O.P. TNGCL appeared and filed written statement denying the allegation  made by the complainant in his complaint petition. It is stated by the O.P. that the complaint is not maintainable in its present from and nature and hence liable to to be dismissed. It is stated by the O.P. that the meter reading of the present complainant was collected on 01.06.2020 and period was 30.03.2020 to 30.05.2020. Reading was recorded as 1344 units and the closing meter readings was 1282 units on 30.03.2020. The complainant was billed only for 62 units vide bill dated 22.06.2020. It is also stated by the O.P. that during the Lock down period at the end of March, 2020 the meter reading could not be collected as such the gas bill for the month of Feb-March 2020 was raised only to the minimum chargeable quantity which is 40 units for 2 months for all consumers. Bill for the the month of December, 2019 - January 2020 gas raised for 20 units and the closing meter reading as on 30.01.2020 was 1242 units.  Thereafter due to lock down  during March meter readings could not be collected and minimum chargeable quantity for two months for 40 units raised for all consumers. As such closing readings on 30.03.2020 for the complainant was put to 1242+ 40 ie., 1282 units. Meter readings for billing towards April 2020- May 2020 were collected during the end of May, 2020 and  readings was recorded as 1344 units  for 62 units. Meter reading for the moth of July, 2020 was found to be 1387 for 43 units. The meter readings is based on actual consumption. Bill dated 22.06.2020 has been raised as per the consumption of the consumer and there was no amount charged in excess. Hence, the O.P. prayed for dismissal of the complaint.   

 

3. Points to be determined:-

(i) Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps?

  (ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation/ relief as prayed for?

 

4. The complainant has submitted the examination in chief on affidavit. The documents submitted by the complainant are marked as Exhibit- 1 Series.  

The O.P. also submitted the examination in chief on affidavit. Documents filed by the O.Ps are also marked Exhibit-A Series.

 

5. ARGUMENTS:-

On the date of argument complainant was absent. Learned counsel Smt. Paramita Dhar was present for  the O.P. and we heard Smt. Dhar about the case. Smt. Dhar submitted that there is no cause of action for filing the complaint. The O.Ps submitted their written statement as well as evidence by way of affidavit of one Chandan Chakraborty, the chief Manager(Commercial) TNGCL. In his evidence Mr. Chakraborty at Para- 7 has given a chart of meter reading from the month of January, March, May and August and at Para – 8 he deposed that the meter reading is based on actual consumption and bill is raised on meter reading. During March, 2020 at lock down period meter reading could not be collected and as such consumers were informed that minimum chargeable quantity for 2 months which is only 40 units shall be raised to all the consumers. Smt. Dhar submitted that there is no merit in the instant complaint and it liable to dismissed. 

 

6. DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION:-  

  Both the points are taken up together for convenience.  We have carefully gone through the complaint petition as well as written statement and also the evidences adduced from both sides. The crux of the allegations is that the complainant received gas consumer bill vide invoice no- TNGCL/GB/ECS/2508 dated 22.06.2020 for the period from 30.03.2020 to 30.05.2020 against the consumer having code no- 0805987. From the said bill it transpired that total 62 units were consumed for that period i.e., for 2 months  and Rs.1414.00 is to be paid within the due date for the said 62 units of gas. It is further alleged that there was no symmetry with the previous bill and it was the allegation of the complainant that the O.P. has adopted unfair and deceptive trade practice by sending excessive bill.

At the time of argument complainant was absent and he failed to explain or justify his complaint. However, we are deciding the complaint on merit after going through the evidences adduced by both the parties. On perusal of the examination in chief on affidavit of D.W. 1 namely Sri Chandan Chakraborty we find that at Para- 7 a chart is given which is as follows:-

 

Opening Meter Readings Date Closing Meter Readings Date Consumption

 

1190 30.11.2019 1242 30.01.2020 52

1242 30.01.2020 1282 30.03.2020 40

1282 30.03.2020 1344 30.05.2020 62

1344 30.05.2020 1387 05/08/20 43

 

7. From the evidences of D.W.1 we also find that during lock down period for Covid-19, meter reading was not taken after visiting the consumer's house and it was also informed to all consumers for the reason of safety of the public in general and subsequently the Consumer bill was regularized when situation was normal.

 

8. On overall appreciation of the evidences adduced from both sides we are in the opinion that the O.P. never indulged in any unfair trade practice with their consumers nor have they ever carried out any practice which can be termed as deceptive trade practice and the allegations of the complainant are baseless and devoid of merit. Hence, the complaint is dismissed. No costs. Supply copy of the judgment to both the parties free of cost.

 

Announced.

 

SD/-

SRI R. PAL

PRESIDENT, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

SD/-

Dr (SMT) B. PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

SD/-

SRI SAMIR GUPTA,

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.