Consumer Complaint No. 22 of 2016
Date of filing: 25-02-2016 Date of disposal: 27-09-2016.
Present :
Sri Asoke Kr. Mandal, Hon’ble President,
Smt. Silpi Majumder, Hon’ble Member,
Sri Pankaj Kr. Sinha, Hon’ble Member,
SIJNA DEEPTUBEWELL BENEFICIARY COMMITTEE,
Represented by its Secretary, having its office at Vill.-Sijna,
P.O.-Jhikra, P.S.-Monteswer, Dist.-Burdwan, Pin-713422. Complainant.
VERSUS
- WBSEDCL, Moteswer Customer Care,
Represented by its Station Manager, having its office at
P.O. & P.s.-Monteswer, Dist.-Burdwan, Pin-713422.
- WBSEDCL,
Represented through its Chairman, having its office at Bidyut
Bhawan,Block-C, 5th floor, Sesctor-2, Salt Lake, Kolkata-91. Opposite Parties.
Appeared for the complainant : Ld. Adv. Suvro Chakraborty.
Appeared for the Opposite Party No.1 & 2 : Ld. Adv. Biswanath Nag.
JUDGEMENT
This is a case U/s 12 C.P. Act, 1986 for an award directing the O.Ps. to correct the bill for the months of September, 2013 to December, 2013, directing the O.Ps. to exempt the complainant from giving the LPSC charge, directing the O.Ps. to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental pain, agony and harassment and directing them to pay Rs.20,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant.
The complainant’s case in short is that the complainant is a beneficiary committee of Sijna Village , Gram Panchayet-Bhagra Mulgram. The complainant used to irrigate the fields of its beneficiaries by running a deep tube well. To run said deep tube well the complainant used to consume electricity from the O.Ps. through Meter No. ST608127 being Consumer No.A90040 by paying the charges as per bills raised by the O.Ps. Due to ill luck of the complainant and natural
-2-
calamity said meter was burnt on 5.9.2013. After the ending of such natural calamity the complainant submitted a written representation before the O.Ps. on 27.9.2013 intimating such occurance with a request to the O.Ps. to inspect the spot and to send the bill for the month of September, 2013 considering the situation of beneficiaries and to replace the burnt meter with a new one. For burning of such meter, the deep tube well was totally stopped. The motor of the pump of deep tube well was also burnt on said date. Subsequently, the complainant repaired said motor. Inspite of several requests the O.P. No.1 did not pay any heed and sent the bill for the period from 8.9.2013 to 30.9.2013 claiming Rs.14,176/- and then the O.P. No.1 again sent bill dated 14.11.2013 claiming Rs.17,014/- knowing very well that no electricity was consumed by the complainant in those months due to burnt of meter and motor. Thereafter, the complainant by submitting a representation dated 2.12.2013 again requested the O.Ps. to consider the matter but the O.Ps. did not take any steps to correct the bill for the period from 8.9.2013 to 30.9.2013 and also they did not take any steps to solve the dispute. In the month of December, 2013, the O.Ps. replaced the burnt meter by a new one bearing No. GT002552 and they started to send the bills one after another as per reading of the new meter. Being aggrieved by the act of the O.Ps., the complainant submitted representation verbally and also in writing on 24.1.2014 and 11.2.2015. Without giving effect to the representations of the complainant, the O.Ps. sent a disconnection notice to the complainant on 2.9.2015, showing outstanding amount of Rs.2,74,515/-. The complainant including other beneficiaries are poor cultivator and they used water for cultivation of their lands by running the deep tube well and paying electric bills by selling their crops. The conduct of the O.Ps. in the matter of disposal of the representations, clearly show the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. So, the complainant is entitled to get compensation and litigation cost also. Hence this case with the prayers as mentioned above.
The O.Ps. contested this case by filing joint written version while stating inter-alia that the complainant has no cause of action to file this case, there is no relationship of consumer and service provider in between the complainant and the O.Ps. and the case is not maintainable as in view of the provision of Electricity Act, 2003 and Rules & Regulation framed there under, if there is any dispute regarding the mode of preparation of bills and its payment made thereof, the same is to be ventilated before the Regulatory Commission or before the person or authority empowered by the Act and also this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this case. It has been further stated by these O.Ps. that the service connection having Consumer ID No.516043896 stands in the name of SIJNA D.T.W. Secretary Sijna Beneficiary Committee of Vill.-Sijna Jhikra, Burdwan and said connection was effected for the purpose of running a deep tube well of 17.50 K.W. and since the installation of said service connection, the bills showing energy consumption were being raised some times on meter reading basis when the
-3-
performance of the meter was O.K. and sometimes on average basis when the meter was found defective, the bills upto the month of October, 2013 were raised as per meter reading but subsequently, in the month of November, 2013, the meter was found defective, as such the bills for the period from November, 2013 to December, 2013 was raised as per W.B.S.R.C. Clause 3.6.1 of the Regulation No.55 considering the previous consumption during the period from October, 2012 to November, 2012 and said bills are legal and justified. It has also been stated that the complainant consumed 6009 units in the month of November, 2014 and 4419 units in the month of November, 2012, the O.Ps. raised bill for the month of November,2013 showing consumption of 441 units only when the meter was defective, the complainant consumed 3000 units in the month of December, 2014 and 1244 units in the month of December, 2012 units, the O.Ps. raised a bill for the month of December, 2013 showing consuption of 1244 units only when the meter was defective, as such said bills are justified, and the complainant has liability to pay the amount as shown in said bills, but the complainant is very much irregular in payment of the electric bills and accordingly a disconnection notice U/s. 56(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003 was issued showing the dues of Rs.2,74,515/-. It is further claimed by these O.Ps. that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. and accordingly this case is liable to be dismissed with cost.
DECISION WITH REASON
In support of the case as ventilated in the complaint, the complainant has relied upon the photo copies of letter dated 27.9.2013, letter dated 2.12.2013, letter dated 24.1.2014 and letter dated 11.2.2015 issued by the complainant to S.S., Monteswar, Burdwan and to the Divisional Manager, Kalna, Burdwan. The complainant has also relied upon the photo copies of disconnection notice dated 2.9.2015 issued by the O.Ps., resolution dated 12.11.2015 taken by the complainant committee, more or less 21 electric bills issued by the O.Ps. to the complainant for payment and the evidence on affidavit sworn by one Gopal Das. On the other hand from the side of the O.Ps., W.V. supported by affidavt, written argument and Clause-3.6.1 of the Regulation No.55, have been relied upon.
Let us see how far the complainant has been able to prove the case as ventilated in the complaint.
The complainant though has prayed for an award directing the O.Ps. to correct the bills for the months of September, 2013 to December, 2013, in Para-2 & 3 of the complaint, the complainant has only made an allegation that the meter bearing No. STS608127 and the motor of the deep tube well were burnt on 5.9.2013 due to ill luck of the complainant and natural calamity and on 27.9.2013 the complainant by sending a letter intimated the O.Ps. that insident
-4-
of burnt with a requests to send the electric bill for the month of September, 2013 after enquiry. But the O.P. No.1 has sent illegally the electric bill for the period from 8.9.2013 to 30.9.2013 claiming Rs.14,176/-. We carefully perused the copy of the letter dated 27.9.2013, it appears that by sending said letter the complainant intimated the O.Ps. that the meter and the motor of the deep tube well were burnt but the motor of the deep tube well was repaired subsiquently before 27.9.2013. The copy of receipt showing repairing cost has not been submitted in this case. In the complaint the complainant has admitted that the bill was prepared and sent by the O.Ps. for the period from 8.9.2013 to 30.9.2013 claiming Rs.14,176/-. There is no evidence on record showing that for the entire period from 8.9.2013 to 30.9.2013 the motor was out of order. The O.Ps. in their written version and also by adducing evidence have stated that the electric meter as well as the motor of the pump/deep tube well were functioning properly upto the month of October,2013 and accordingly as per meter reading necessary electric bills were raised up to the month of October, 2013 and thereafter in the month of November, 2013 it was detected that the meter was defective and accordingly for the month of November & December, 2013 the electric bills were raised as per WBSRC Clause-3.6.1 of Regulation No.55 considering the previous consumption and said bills are legal and justified. Except the evidence on affidavit sworn by Gopal Das, no corroborative evidence has been adduced from the side of the complainant showing that on 5.9.2013 the electric meter in question was burnt. The O.Ps. in their written version supported by an affidavit, has denied such specific case of the complainant. So, it was the duty of the complainant to prove the case related to the alleged burnt of electric meter strictly by adducing corroborative evidence. But the complainant has failed to do so. More over on perusing the photocopy of electric bill for the month of September, 2013 shows that previous reading of the meter was 178597 units and the present reading was 182231 units related to the period from 8.9.2013 to 30.9.2013. The said bill also shows that in the month of September, 2013 the complainant consumed 3634 units of electricity and accordingly the O.Ps. raised bill for the period from 8.9.2013 to 30.9.2013 claiming Rs.14,176/-. In the written version the O.Ps. have claimed that in the month of November, 2013 it was detected that said electric meter was defective and as such they raised average bill as per WBSRC Clause-3.6.1 of Regulation No.55. The photocopy of the bills for the consumption month of November, 2013 and December, 2013, clearly show that the previous reading and present reading of the meter in those two months were found equal and accordingly average bill as per provisions of Regulation as mentioned above, were raised. The average bills for the month of November & December, 2013 as claimed by the O.Ps. have not been challenged by the complainant by adducing any evidence. In the written version the O.Ps. have specifically stated that in the month of November, 2014 when the meter was O.K., the complainant consumed 6009 units of electricity and in the month of November, 2012 when the meter was O.K., the complainant consumed 4419 units of electricity. The O.Ps. raised bill for
-5-
the month of November, 2013 when the meter was defective, showing consumption of only 441 units and the O.Ps. have raised the bill claiming the charge of said 441 units. In the written version the O.Ps. have also claimed that the complainant consumed 3000 units of electricity in the month of December, 2014 when the meter was O.K., and the complainant consumed 1244 units of electricity in the month of December, 2012 when the meter was O.K., and accordingly, the o.Ps. raised bill for the month of December, 2013 when the meter was defective, showing consumption of 1244 units only. This specific case of consumption of electricty in the months of November & December 2012 and in the months of November & December 2014 as raised by the O.Ps. have not been challenged by the complainant. So, we find nothing to disbelieve this case of the O.Ps.
In the letters dated 27.9.2013, 2.12.2013, 24.1.2014 and 11.2.2015 the complainant has only made a claim that in the month of September, 2013, the meter in question was burnt and bill raised for the month of September, 2013 is not justified and by said letter the complainant made a prayer for correction of the bill for the month of September, 2013 only. In the complaint and also in the letters as mentioned above the complainant has not stated that the bills raised for the month of October, 2013, November, 2013 and December, 2013 are not justified though they have made a prayer for correction of the bills of the above three months. In view of the above discussions we are of the opinion that the complainant’s specific case that the electric meter in question was burnt in the month of September, 2013, has not been proved for want of corroborative evidence.
Within the period starting from the month of August, 2012 to October, 2015 out of the bills raised, total copies of 21 electric bills connected with the electric meter in question have been submitted in this case. On perusing the copies of said bills it appears that the complainant is very much irregular to pay the electric bills to the O.Ps. The copies of the electric bills are supporting that for the period up to the month of July, 2015, the complainant had liability to pay total Rs.2,74,515/- as outstanding dues. The copies of the bills submitted in this case clearly show that in each and every bills the O.Ps. have shown the outstanding dues payable by the complainant. Considering the fact as mentioned above it is clear that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.
In view of our above discussions it has been decided that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps., the complainant has failed to prove that in the month of September, 2013 the electric meter was burnt, by adducing corroborative evidence. So, we are of the opinion that the complaint fails.
-6-
Fees paid is correct. Hence it is
Ordered
that the case being No.22/2016 be and the same is dismissed on contest without any cost against the O.Ps.
Let the copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.
(Asoke Kr. Mandal)
Dictated and corrected by me. President
D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan
(Asoke Kr. Mandal)
President
D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan
(Silpi Majumder) (Sri Pankaj Kr. Sinha)
Member Member
D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan
