Sri Pulak Bhattacharjee filed a consumer case on 07 Feb 2024 against Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited (TSECL), to be represented by the Managing Director in the West Tripura Consumer Court. The case no is CC/48/2023 and the judgment uploaded on 08 Feb 2024.
Tripura
West Tripura
CC/48/2023
Sri Pulak Bhattacharjee - Complainant(s)
Versus
Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited (TSECL), to be represented by the Managing Director - Opp.Party(s)
Mr.P.R.Barman, Mr.D.Paul, Mr.K.Nath.
07 Feb 2024
ORDER
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA
CASE NO: CC- 48 of 2023
1. Sri Pulak Bhattacharjee,
S/O- Late Prabhat Chandra Bhattacharjee,
NG Apartment, Ramnagar Road No.1,
Agartala, West Tripura- 799001.
2. Sri Satyabrata Dasgupta,
S/O- Late Satish Chandra Dasgupta
NG apartment, Ramnagar, Road No.1,
Agartala, West Tripura- 799001.
3. Sri Narayan Majumder,
S/O- Late Priya Lal Majumder,
NG Apartment, Ramnagar Road No.1,
Agartala, West Tripura- 799001.
4. Smt. Sankari Chakraborty,
W/o -Sri Amiya Bhattacharya,
NG Apartment, Ramnagar Road No.1,
Agartala, West Tripura- 799001.
5. Sri Pinak Bhattacharjee,
S/O- Late Prabhat Chandra Bhattacharjee,
NG Apartment, Ramnagar Road No.1,
Agartala, West Tripura- 799001.
6. Dr. Pradyut Sen,
S/O- Late Pushpa Ranjan Sen,
NG Apartment, Ramnagar Road No.1,
Agartala, West Tripura- 799001.
7. Smt. Suili Gupta,
W/O- Sri Sekhar Chowdhury,
NG Apartment, Ramnagar Road No.1,
Agartala, West Tripura- 799001.…............Complainants.
-VERSUS-
1. Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited(TSECL),
To be represented by the Managing Director, TSECL,
Bidyut Bhaban, P.O.- Agartala, P.S. - East Agartala,
Banamalipur, Agartala, West Tripura-799001.
2. The Managing Director, TSECL,
Bidyut Bhaban, Banamalipur,
P.S. East Agartala, P.O.- Agartala,
Agartala, West Tripura-799001.
3. The Senior Manager(Revenue),
Electrical Sub-Division No. IV, IGM,
Office of the Senior Manager(Revenue),
ESD-IV, IGM, TRTC Complex,
P.S. West Agartala, P.O. Agartala,
Agartala, West Tripura-799001............Opposite Parties.
__________PRESENT__________
SRI GOUTAM DEBNATH
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 :Sri Purushuttam Roy Barman,
Sri Dipjyoti Paul,
Sri Kousik Nath,
Learned Advocates.
For the O.P. No. : Sri Nepal Majumder,
Sri Swarup Dey,
Sri Subrata Roy,
Learned Advocates.
ORDER DELIVERED ON: 07.02.2024.
F I N A L O R D E R
1.The complainants have filed this joint complaint against the O.Ps stating inter alia that they are the owners of their respective flats in a residential complex as mentioned in the complaint petition. They have their respective electricity connections in their flats and one common connection vide consumer ID No. 100110422211 which covers the common area of the complex namely NG Apartment which include lift facilities, motor water facilities and only a few electrical appliances in the common area. This connection was provided on 06.04.2019 in the name of one Niren Baran Paul, one of the flat owners. In the month of August, 2019 electric bill for Rs.74,000/- was raised for this connection. The bill being huge the complainant raised objection by making a partial payment of Rs.20,000/- with request to the O.Ps to take necessary action, but to no good.
1.1On 16.06.2020 a bill of Rs.1,06,160/- with arrears for Rs.84,746/- was raised. The complainants brought the matter to the notice of Hon'ble Power Minister of Tripura, but to no good. Subsequently, Deputy General Manager of Electric Division No-I in presence of Senior Manager gave guidelines for rectification of defective connection for individual as well as common connections but the O.Ps took no initiative for rectification. The complainants submitted representation to the General Manager for necessary rectification. Ultimately in the month of February, 2022 the O.Ps deputed one technical team. The complainants all along requested the O.Ps to revisit the defective bills. On 31.01.2023 instead of recalculating the defective bills the O.Ps send a notice U/S 56 of the Electricity Act demanding Rs.4,53,023/- . Hence, a meeting was held with the General Manager but to no good. As such on 28.02.2023 one Legal Notice was served upon the O.Ps.
1.2Ultimately, the complainants approached the Hon'ble High Court against the notice and the Hon'ble High Court was pleased to direct the O.Ps to consider the representation dated 22.03.2023 and not to give effect of the notice served U/S 56 till disposal of the representation. But the O.Ps disconnected the electricity line for that a contempt case was filed and ultimately the connection was given again. But in the meantime on 02.06.2023 the complainants approached this Commission with this case.
2.Written objection submitted by the O.Ps denying the cause of action and justified raising the bills and also questioned the correctness of filing this case during pendency of the matter before the Hon'ble High court and prayed to dismissed the case.
3.The parties submitted evidence on affidavit and documents.
4.During hearing Learned Counsel of the complainant argued that the schedule attached with the complaint will show the unjustified raising of the bills per contra Learned Counsel of the O.P. Mr. Nepal Majumder argued that during pendency of the Writ Petition this complaint was filed hence, it is liable to be dismissed.
5.Following points ate taken up for discussion and decision?:-
(i) Whether during pendency of the Writ Petition this complaint is maintainable?
(ii) Whether the bill raised by the O.Ps is justified apparently and the O.Ps are guilty of deficient of service?
6.Both the points are taken up together.
6.1The complainants filed writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court only seeking direction to the O.Ps not to disconnect the electricity connection and Hon'ble High Court was pleased to pass such order and for violation of such order contempt petition was filed which was also disposed of as the O.Ps reconnected the electric connections.
6.2Before this Commission the complainants have filed complaint seeking compensation and reconsideration of the bill on the ground of deficiency in service. Therefore, with all humility we find no justification not to entertain this complaint.
6.3On perusal of the complaint the schedule annexed in page- 7 we find that during the year 2020 for 9 months total units consumed was 12722 units i.e., 1413.55 units per month. In the year 2021 for 12 months total units raised were 17028 units i.e., 1419 units per month. In the year 2022 for 12 months total units raised were 5454 units i.e., 454.5 units per month. Likewise in the year 2023 for 3 months units raised were 608 units i.e., 202.66 units per month.
6.4From the above chart for the year 2020, 2021 compared with the chart of 2022 and 2023 that is after rectification of the connection it is clear that the bills raised earlier were erroneous and required to be corrected.
6.5We consider the average billing of the year 2020 & 2021 and compared with the billing per month of the year 2022 when the electric line was rectified by the complainants at the instruction of the O.Ps which was duly informed to the O.Ps by the complainants in writing which is also lying on record. We do not consider the average billing of the year 2023 because till then units of 3 months only have been shown in the complaint. Hence, the average billing of unit consumed during the year 2022 is appropriate and justified. Hence, the O.Ps are guilty of deficient in service for excess billing.
7.Both the points are decided accordingly.
8.In the result, it is ordered that the O.Ps shall resubmit separate bills to the complainant for the pending months @ 454.5 units per month and calculate the bills for the disputed period from April, 2020 to March, 2022 accordingly which the complainants shall pay within 20 days from the date of submitting the bills however, without any fine whatsoever. The O.Ps shall submit separate bills upto date for the rest period as per meter reading.
9.The case stands disposed of.
10.Supply one copy of this Final order to the any one of the complainants and one copy for the O.Ps.
Announced.
SRI GOUTAM DEBNATH
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.
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.