DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA
CASE NO: CC- 28 of 2014
Sri Sujit Kumar Bardhan,
S/O- Lt. Gobinda Ch. Bardhan,
Indranagar(South), Near Kalibari,
Agartala, West Tripura. .......Complainant.
______VERSUS_____
1. The Chairman Cum Managing Director,
Tripura Electricity Corporation Limited,
Bidyut Bhavan,
North Banamalipur, Agartala,
West Tripura,
2. The Senior Manager,
Electricity Sub- Division No-V.
79 Tilla, Agartala,
West Tripura. ......Opposite Parties.
__________PRESENT__________
SRI S. C. SAHA
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA.
SMT. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA.
SHRI B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA.
C O U N S E L
For the Complainant : Complainant in person.
For the Opposite Party : Sri P. Chakraborty,
Advocate.
JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON : - 03.03.15.
J U D G M E N T
This is a complaint U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986(herein after referred to as 'the Act') filed by the complainant, Sri Sujit Kr. Bardhan of Indranagar, Agartala, West Tripura against the O.Ps, namely Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd. represented by its Chairman cum Managing Director and the Senior Manager, Electricity Sub Division No-V, 79 Tilla, Agartala over a consumer dispute alleging negligence and deficiency in rendering service on the part of the O.Ps.
2. The fact of the case as gathered from the record is that the complainant is a consumer of domestic electricity connection no- 02800000000110011649 under the Tripura State Electricity Corporation having sanctioned load of 0.60 KW. The O.P. No.2 raised two electricity bills – one for Rs.933.66 for the period from 02.08.13 to 04.09.13 and another for Rs.1097 for the period from 05.09.13 to 04.01.14 though the complainant consumed only 1 unit of electricity against each bill. Though the complainant made advance payment of Rs.395/-, which would be evident from the consumer's Pass Book, yet the O.P. No.2 did not deduct the said amount while preparing the final bill. According to the complainant, the O.P. No.2 raised bills for the aforesaid period arbitrarily. He made two written complaints with the O.P. No.2 demanding correction of the defective bills, but he did not respond to his representations. That being so, the O.Ps are guilty of negligence and deficiency in rendering service and hence he is liable to be compensated by the O.Ps.
3. Though the O.Ps recorded appearance through their engaged counsel, yet they neither filed written objection nor led any evidence in support of their case.
4. In support of the claim, the complainant has examined himself as P.W. 1 and has proved and exhibited the following documents:
Exhibit1 and Exhibit 2: Letters dated 02.01.14 and 06.01.14 addressed to the O.P. No.2.
Exhibit 3 Series: Two electricity bills and money receipt dated 06.01.14 and
Exhibit 4: Photocopy of consumer's Pass Book.
FINDINGS:
5. The points that would arise for consideration in this proceeding are:
(i) Whether the electricity bills dated 04.09.13 and 04.01.13 raised by the O.P. No. 2 were defective;
(ii) Whether the O.Ps are guilty of negligence and deficiency in rendering service. If so, whether the complainant is liable to be compensated by the O.Ps.
6. We have already heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Also perused the complaint, documents on record and the evidence adduced by the complaint meticulously.
7. We have examined the disputed electricity bills dated 04.09.13 and 04.01.14. On perusal of the bill dated 04.09.13 it is found that by the said bill energy charge was raised for the period from 02.08.13 to 04.09.13 and the amount billed for consumption of 1 unit of electricity. The net amount payable was Rs.933.66. In the said bill, the arrears of amount was shown as 859.10. similarly in the second electricity bill dated 04.01.14, which was raised for the period from 05.09.13 to 04.01.14, the electricity was shown to have been consumed only for 1 unit. The net amount payable was RS.1097/- including the arrears of amount of Rs.933.66.
8. It is not at all understandable to us as to how the O.P. No.2 drew the bill dated 04.01.14 for Rs.1097 for consumption of electricity only for 1 unit. There is no mention in the bill how the arrears of amount towards energy charges accumulated to Rs.859.10 and Rs.933.66 respectively when in each bill the electricity was shown to have been consumed only for 1 unit. Further, it is seen from the entries made in the consumer's pass book that the complainant made advance payment of Rs.395/- (Rs.50 + Rs.25 + Rs.320) on different dates. Curiously, the said amount has not been adjusted towards final electricity bill. The reason is best known to the O.P. No.2.
9. In the instant case, to controvert the averments made by the complainant in his complaint, the .O.Ps did not file written objection. They have not even led any evidence in rebuttal. Until contrary is proved, we have no other option than to rely upon the evidence adduced by the complainant. If the complaint was contested by the O.Ps filing written objection, it would have been made clear what was the logic behind drawing bill for Rs.1097/- when the electricity was shown to have been consumed only for 1 unit and how did the arrears of amount accumulated as mentioned in the relevant columns of the bills. During the course of argument, the learned counsel appearing for the O.Ps, on our query, could not clarify this anomalous position.
10. It is the grievance of the complainant that though the defect in the bills was pointed out by him by his written complaints dated 02.01.14 and 06.01.14 (Exhibit- 1 and Exhibit- 2), yet the correction was not made in the bills. To avoid disconnection of his domestic electric connection, he deposited the full amount of the bill amounting to Rs.1097/- under protest. The conduct of the complainant appears to be very fair. Surprising enough, the O.P. No.2 did not bother to respond to the representations made by the complainant and rectified the bills.
11. We have already pointed out that the disputed electricity bills dated 04.09.13 and 04.01.14(Exhibit-3 series) did not reflect the correct picture as the amount billed for has no bearing with the quantum of electricity actually consumed by the complainant. In our considered opinion, the disputed bills were drawn arbitrarily without applying mind. That being so, the charge of negligence and deficiency in service are attributable to the O.Ps.
12. In the result, therefore, the complaint U/S 12 of the Act filed by the complainant is allowed. The O.P. No.2 is directed to cancel the disputed bills dated 04.09.13and 04.01.14 and issue fresh bills calculating on the basis of actual meter reading and adding other admissible charges within 15 days of the date of the receipt of the copy of the judgment. The advance amount of Rs.395/- (Rupees Three Hundred Ninety Five) deposited by the complainant is to be deducted from the total amount of the bill payable by the complainant. The excess amount, if any, is to be refunded to the complainant. The O.Ps are also directed to pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees Five thousand) to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment together with Rs.2000/-(Rupees Two thousand) as cost of litigation. The O.Ps will pay the said amount to the complainant within 6(six) weeks from the date of judgment, failing which the amount payable will carry interest @9% P.A. till the payment is made.
13. A N N O U N C E D
SRI S. C. SAHA
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA.
SRI B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM,
AGARTALA, WEST TRIPURA.
