In the Court of the
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,
8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087.
CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 382 / 2010
1) Harjit Singh Gill,
B. No.8, F. No.4D Ganex Valley. ----------- Complainant
---Versus---
1) West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd.
Service through its Chairman,
Bidyut Bhawan, Salt Lake, Kolkata-91.
2) The Station Manager,
West Bangal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd.
Pailan Group Electric Supply, Bhasa, Bishnupur.
3) The Supdt. Engineer (Commercial),
South 24 Parganas Distribution, Administrative Building, WBSEDCL.
9, Old Post Office Street, 3rd floor, Kolkata-1, P.S. Hare Street.
4) The Chief Electrical Inspector, Govt. of West Bengal,
1, Harish Mukherjee Road, Kolkata-20, P.S. Bhabanipore. ---------- Opposite Parties
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member
Smt. Sharmi Basu, Member
Order No. 16 Dated 17/10/2012.
The petition of complaint has been filed by the complainant Harjit Singh Gill against the o.ps. West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. The case of the complainant in short is that complainant is a consumer of electricity under o.ps. and his average consumption of electricity not more than Rs.1000/- and he regularly paid the same in time. Complainant received a bill a sum of Rs.15,127/- being bill dt.4.8.10 which is inflated and due to such inflated bill sent by o.p., complainant requested o.p. for meter testing and complainant was ready to pay necessary cost of such meter testing but no action taken by o.ps. Complainant sent several letter to o.ps. but no action taken by o.ps. However, in the meantime, the CGRO (Consumer Grievance Redressal Officer) observed that the meter is defective and the said officer directed o.p. to reduce the bill amount dt. July, August and September 2010.
Thereafter, complainant requested o.p. to check the meter through Govt. authorized meter testing department but the present case, o.p’s officer (CGRO verified the meter stated that the meter is defective and directed to reduce 35 of the total amount which is not on the basis of law complainant used only 3 tubes, 3 fans, 1 TV and 1 fridge so, the amount of the bills are illegal and complainant did not consume the aforesaid unit so, the meter testing is necessary. O.p. further sent huge amount monthly bill which is also illegal and the said bills on the basis of such defective meter.
O.p. in the mean time changed the defective meter in absence of complainant which is illegal and the reason, complainant bound to pay such baseless illegal bill and no evidence on the hand of complainant which is clear unfair trade practice on the part of o.ps. That being such illegal act on the part of o.ps. complainant filed the case.
O.ps. had entered their appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations labeled against them and prayed for dismissal of the case.
Decision with reasons:
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular and we find that complainant used to receive inflated bill from his electric meter and on several correspondences with CGRO (Consumer Grievance Redressal Officer) an inspection was held wherein CGRO detected the meter as defective one and directed o.ps. to reduce the bill amount for the month of July, August and September 2010 and the complainant requested the o.ps. to check the meter b y the Govt. Authorized Meter Testing Deptt. and CGRO verified the meter and directed to reduce 3% of the total amount and according to the complainant that was not proper direction. It is also apparent from the record that the meter was taken away by o.ps. in absence of complainant and o.ps. started sending inflated bills on the basis of the said defective meter.
In view of the above findings and on perusal of the materials on record we find that the o.ps. did not observe the statutory formalities while sending the check bills to complainant and this act on the part of o.ps. amounts to deficiency in service being service provider to their consumer / complainant and complainant is entitled to relief.
Hence, ordered,
That the case is allowed on contest against the o.ps. with cost. O.ps. are jointly and/or severally directed not to disconnect the complainant’s domestic electric line on the basis of disputed bill dt.23.10.10 and are further directed to install a new meter replacing the present one from the house of the complainant and are further directed to pay compensation of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 9% shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
