In the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hooghly, At Chinsurah.
Case No. CC/96/2019.
Date of filing: 31/07/2019. Date of Final Order: 22/09/2023.
Smt. Srimati Saha,
w/o Ajit Kumar Saha,
r/o Village- Somaspur,
P.O. & P.S. Dhaniakhali,
Dist. Hooghly, PIN. 712302. …..complainant
-vs
- The West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd.
Represented by one of its Principal officer-
The Divisional Engineer(D),
Tarakeswar Division,
The West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd.
Vill. Joyarishnabazar, P.O. Tarakeswar,
Dist. Hooghly, PIN. 712410.
- The Station Manager,
Dhaniakhali Group Electric Supply,
The West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd.
P.O. & P.S. Dhaniakhali, Dist. Hooghly, PIN. 712302.
…….opposite parties.
Before: President, Shri Debasish Bandyopadhyay.
Member, Debasis Bhattacharya.
FINAL ORDER/JUDGEMENT
Presented by:-
Shri Debasish Bandyopadhyay, President.
Brief fact of this case:- This case has been filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant stating that the meter of the complainant is not working properly or is defective since sept. 2018 which will appear from the electric bill for monthly electricity consumption charges issued by the office of the op-2 and the same was well within the knowledge of the op-2. Due to improper function and defects in the meter of the complainant the meter reading of the said meter was not proper since and accordingly the recording of consumption of electricity of the meter of the complainant was faulty one since that period. The op-2 inspite of having knowledge the aforementioned electric meter or the complainant is defective and sticky one, he raised and issued an electric bill by showing an unreasonable and improper consumption of electricity and demanded an inflated amount by issuance of bill for the month of September 2018. From the said electric bill it will clearly appear the meter of the complainant being meter no.RGX 91346 seems defective and from the said bill it will appear that the meter reading has been calculated on estimated basis which is not permissible in the eye of law. The complainant on several occasions verbally requested the op-2 to replace the defective meter by a new one but the op -2 did not pay any heed. Finding no other alternative the complainant on 18.4.2019 in writing prayed for replacement of her defective meter as also rectification and correction of the electric bill for the month of April 2019 and the said written application was duly received by the office oftheop-2 on 18.4.2019.
The op-2 inspite of receive the application of the complainant neither showed any interest to solve the problem of the complainant nor responded to her request for the reason best known to him. Not only that neither the op -2 nor his official staff came to the complainant for check and verify the said defective meter rather the op-2 by adopting the same illegal procedure and practice has been issued electric bills for subsequent months.
The complainant for that filed an application on 29.4.2019 asked theop-2 to take necessary steps on the basis of the application dated 18.4.19,29.4.2019 and 15.5.2019 but the op-2 inspite of receiving the application dated 29.4.2019 and 15.5.2019 remained deaf ear rather by a reply letter dated 15.5.2019 and 3.6.2019 the op -2 informed the complainant that regeneration of the energy bill for the month of April 2019 could not be processed as the said bill has been raised with estimated consumption units. From the said reply letter it will clearly appear that the op-2 authority admitted that the meter of the complainant is defective and the estimated units have been claimed on the average consumption of previous year same period when the matter was in running condition. Curious enough though the op-2 authority in his said reply letter has stated that the energy bill for the period of April 2019 has been raised on the average consumption of same period of 2018 but the said statement is totally contrary to the actual state of affairs which will appear from the energy bill for the period of April 2018 and the ops inspite of well aware that the electric meter of the complainant is a defective and sticky so the reading of consumption of electricity units cannot be proper. Not only that the complainant informed the op-2 about the inflated bill amount raised against defective meter but the op authority instead of paying any heed to solve the problem denied to the same. The said acts on the part of the op authority is nothing but deficiency in service. Moreso from the energy bills raised by the op authority assessed on average basis, against a defective meter is nothing but unfair trade practice.
The complainant till June 2019 has paid the entire amount as claimed by the op-2 through energy bill issued by his office due to fear of the disconnection but she is in apprehension of possibility of disconnection of electric meter. Due to aforesaid illegal acts and activities the complainant has suffered and is suffering mental pain and agony. It stated here that the op-2 has issued electricity bill in respect of the disputed meter for the month of July 2019 and the complainant though received the same on 5.7.2019 but did not pay the bill amount as the meter is defective one.
Complainant filed the complaint petition praying direction upon the opposite party to issue proper electric since Sept, 2018 and not to disconnect the electric service connection and to replace the defective meter and to pay a sum of Rs. 100000/- for mental agony and to refund the excess bill amount alongwith statutory interest already received by the op-2 and to pay a sum of Rs.100000/- for deficiency in service and to pay a sum of Rs.100000/- for unfair trade practice and to pay a sum of Rs.20000/- for litigation cost.
Defense Case:- The opposite party No.2 contested the case by filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegation as leveled against him and stated that an agriculture service connection of Somaspur (Hararpur) stands in the name of complainant vide con. No.101225706. The present OP again submits that an application was received from complainant on 18.4.2019 regarding regeneration of Energy bill for the period of April 2019 in the said service connection after scrutiny it was found that the said bill for April 2019 was raised with estimated unit as the meter installed at that premises was seems to be defective. The present op further submits that according to the estimative logic the above mentioned units as estimated had been claimed on the average consumption of previous year same period of April 2018 when meter was running condition. In April 2018 consumption was recorded as 1304 unit (normal) 298 unit (peak) and 702 units (off peak) against consumption of 27 days. Average unit per day consumption and calculation bill stated in the w/v.
The present op further submits that an intimation letter vide memono.181 dt.15.5.2019 was sent to complainant stating that the bill could not be regenerated as bill had been raised according to estimation logic and on 17.7.2019 the defective meter was replaced by a new meter and from September 2019 the bills are being raised on actual consumption basis accordingly to new meter. So, there is no deficiency of service held on the part of op and so the present case is liable to be dismissed with cost.
Issues/points for consideration
On the basis of the pleading of the parties, the District Commission for the interest of proper and complete adjudication of this case is going to adopt the following points for consideration:-
- Whether the complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties or not?
- Whether this Forum/ Commission has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
- Is there any cause of action for filing this case by the complainant?
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief which has been prayed by the complainant in this case or not?
Evidence on record
The complainant filed evidence on affidavit which is nothing but replica of complaint petition and supports the averments of the complainant in the complaint petition and denial of the written version of the opposite parties.
The answering opposite party filed evidence on affidavit which transpires the averments of the written version and so it is needless to discuss.
Argument highlighted by the ld. Lawyers of the parties
Complainant and opposite party filed written notes of argument. As per BNA the evidence on affidavit and written notes of argument of both sides are to be taken into consideration for passing final order.
Argument as advanced by the agents of the complainant and the opposite party heard in full. In course of argument ld. Lawyers of both sides have given emphasis on evidence and document produced by parties.
DECISIONS WITH REASONS
The first three issues/ points of consideration which have been framed on the ground of maintainability and/ or jurisdiction, cause of action and whether complainant is a consumer in the eye of law, are very vital issues and so these three points of consideration are clubbed together and taken up for discussion jointly at first.
Regarding these three points of consideration it is very important to note that the opposite parties even after appearance in this case and after filing written version, have not filed any petition on the ground of nonmaitainability of this case due to the reason best known to them. Under this position this District Commission has passed the order of further hearing of this case. On this background it is also mention worthy that the opposite parties also have not filed any separate petition challenging the maintainability point, jurisdiction point and cause of action issue. The opposite parties in their written version have only pleaded the above noted points. This District Commission after going through the materials of the case record finds that the complainant is a resident of Dhaniakhali, Hooghly which is lying within the territorial jurisdiction of this District Commission. Moreover, this complaint case has been filed with a claim of below 20 lakhs and this matter is clearly indicating that this District Commission has also pecuniary jurisdiction to try this case. Thus, the point of jurisdiction which has been alleged by the opposite parties cannot be accepted. Moreover, u/s 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, this District Commission has jurisdiction to try this case. The opposite parties also have raised the plea of limitation and in the written version it has been pointed out that this case is barred by limitation. But in this connection it is important to note that the provision of 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is very important and according to the provision of Section 24A complaint case can be entertained by the District Commission or State Commission or National Commission even after expiry of 2 years if the complainant satisfies the ld. Commission that he or she has sufficient ground for not filing the case within two years. Moreover in this instant case the cause of action has been continued and thus the above noted plea of the opposite parties which has been pointed out in the written version is also not acceptable. On close examination of the pleadings of the parties it also transpires that there is cause of action for filing this case by the complainant side against the opposite parties. Moreover after going through the provisions of Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 it appears that this case is maintainable and according to the provision of Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Complainant is a consumer in the eye of law. All these factors are clearly depicting that this case is maintainable and complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties and this District Commission has territorial/ pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try this case and there is also cause of action for filing this case by the complainant against the opposite parties. Thus, the above noted three points of consideration are decided in favour of the complainant.
The point no. 4 is related with the question as to whether there is any deficiency in the service on the part of the opposite parties or not? The point no. 5 is connected with the question as to whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief in this case or not? These two pints of consideration are interlinked and/ or interconnected with each other and for that reason these two points of consideration are clubbed together and taken up for discussion jointly.
For the purpose of deciding the fate of these two points of consideration and for the interest of getting answers of the above noted questions, there is necessity of scanning the evidence on affidavit filed by the parties and there is also necessity making scrutiny of the documents filed by the parties of this case.
On comparative studies of the evidence on affidavit filed by the complainant with the evidence on affidavit filed by the opposite parties and on close compare of the documents filed by both parties it appears that on the following points of this case either there is admission on behalf of the both parties or the parties have not raised any dispute:
- It is admitted fact that the complainant has her electric connection in her premises under the OP-2
- It is also admitted fact that the OP-2 is / was supplying electricity to the complainant.
- There is no controversy over the issue that the complainant is a consumer under the OP-2 in the eye of law.
- There is no dispute over the issue that prior to the year 2018 there is no dispute regarding meter of the electric connection of complainant.
- It is also admitted fact that the dispute in the matter of payment of electric bill by the complainant to the OP-2 started from the year 2018.
- It is also admitted fact that the complainant time and again informed the OP-2 about the defective meter of the premises of complainant.
- There is no disputes over the issue that the OP-2 had not inspected the electric meter of the complainant after receiving complaint from the complainant.
- There is no controversy over the issue that the OP-2 had sent electric bill on the basis of average consumption of electricity by the complainant in the year 2018.
- It is admitted fact that the OP-2 in their written version as well as in the evidence of affidavit has admitted the fact of defective electric meter of the premises of complainant.
- There is no controversy over the issue that the OP-2 adopted the plea that they replaced the defective electric meter of the house of the complainant. But over this issue no cogent document has been placed.
Regarding the above noted admitted facts and information there is no necessity of passing any separate observation as it is the settled principle of law that fact admitted need not be proved. This legal principle has been embodied in Section 58 of the Evidence Act.
On the background of the above noted admitted facts and circumstances the parties of this case are differing on the point and/ or apple of discord between the parties of this case is that the complainant adopted the plea that the OP-2 had sent arbitrary and dispute exorbitant electric bill on the basis of average consumption of electricity in respect of meter reading of the year 2018 although the eclectic meter of the complainant was defective from the order 2018. But on the other hand the OP-2 has adopted the defence alibi that after receiving the complaint from the complainant the OP-2 has replaced the defective meter of the house of the complainant and the electric charges which has been described in the electric bill of the complainant was on the basis of average electric consumption of the complainant in the year 2018.
For the purpose of arriving at just and proper decision in respect of the above noted points of difference and apple of discords this District Commission after going through the evidence on record finds that the OP-2 in their written version as well as in the evidence on affidavit has categorically admitted the fact that the electric meter of the house of the complainant was defective and it has been replaced in the year 2019. When the electric meter of complainant was defective since the year 2018 it was not just and proper decision of OP-2 to send electric bill on the basis of calculating average consumption of electricity of complainant in the year 2018. So this part of activity on the part of OP-2 indicates that there is deficiency of service and so the complainant is entitled to get relief which the prayed in this case.
In the result it is accordingly,
Ordered
that this complaint case be and the same is allowed on contest against OP-2 but in part. This complaint case is dismissed against OP-1 as there is no allegation against them.
It is held that the complainant is entitled to get the order of direction upon the OP-2 for issuing proper electric bill since the month of September 2018 and to replace the defective electric meter within 45 days from the date of this judgment. Otherwise the complainant is giving liberty to execute this award as per law.
Let a copy of this order be handed over to the parties of this case of their agents at free of cost.
Let this order be uploaded in the official website of DCDRC, Hooghly.
