Consumer Complaint No. 48 of 2016
Date of filing: 29.03.2016 Date of disposal: 30.12.2016.
Present :
Sri Asoke Kr. Mandal Hon’ble President,
Smt. Silpi Majumder Hon’ble Member,
Syed Kawsar Ali,
S/O- Late Ayed Abdur Rahaman,
R/O- Kanksa(Near Rathtala),
P.O.- Panagarh Bazar, P.S. Kanksa,
Dist.- Burdwan, Pin-713148. Complainant.
VERSUS
- West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd,
Represented by its Chairman/Secretary,
Vidyut Bhawan, Block- C, 5th floor,
Sector- II, Salt Lake City,
Kolkata- 700091.
- The Asst. Eng. and Station Manager, Panagarh,
W.B.S.D.C.L. Panagarh,
P.O. Panagarh Bazar, P.S. Kanksa,
Dist.-Burdwan,Pin-713148. Opposite Parties.
Appeared for the complainant : Ld. Advocate Birendra Pathak & Amit Laha.
Appeared for the O. P. No. 1&2 : Ld. Advocate Biswanath Nag.
JUDGEMENT
This is a case U/s. 12 of the C.P. Act for an award directing the O.Ps. not to demand excess bill arising out of faulty meter, to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for mental pain, agony and harassment and to pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost, to the complainant.
The complainant’s case in short is that the complainant has been enjoying electricity at an average of 35 to 40 units per month since 31.10.2013 having Consumer I.D. No. 500533339 and has been paying electricity bill regularly as per regular meter reading. The electricity meter was suddenly found defective from the month of August, 2015 as the same was not displaying correct units consumed. Immediately in the month of August, 2015, the complainant intimated the matter to the O.P. No. 2 but the O.P. No. 2 did not take any steps to replace or to repair the defective electricity meter. The O.P. No. 2 issued flat bills for the next consecutive six months. The complainant paid said bills. Lastly the bill issued on 26.01.2016 showed consumption of 398 units of electricity by the complainant within 75 days only. The O.Ps. issued such bill on 26.01.2016 illegally without replacing or repairing such defective electricity meter. On several occasions the complainant visited the office of the O.P. No. 2 with a request to issue correct bill replacing the bill dated 26.01.2016 but the O.Ps. did not pay any heed. As such the complainant made a complaint related to the matter as mentioned above before the Head Office. Such complaint was registered as Complaint No. 1545478 dt. 09.02.2016. Then on 15.02.2016 the complainant sent a written complaint through registered post to the O.P. No.2 but same was refused to receive. Till this day the O.Ps. have kept themselves mum. Hence this case with the prayer as mentioned above.
The O.P. No.1&2 contested this case by filing joint written version while stating inter-alia that case is not maintainable as per provisions of C.P. Act, the complainant has no cause of action and this Forum has no jurisdiction to try this case as per provisions Sectios 42(5) & 42(6) of Electricity Act, 2003. It has been further stated by these O.Ps. that the service connection having Consumer I.D. No. 500533339 under Panagarh Customer Care Centre stands in the name of the complainant Syed Kawsar Ali of Village Kanksa Rathtala, P.O. Panagarh Bazar, P.S. Kanksa, Burdwan, since instalation, the energy bills have been raised as per meter reading and accordinly the bill for the months of February, 2016 to April, 2016 was raised in accordance with the reading shown in the installed meter but the complainant after receipt of the said bill applied for rectification of the said bill and after getting such complain the technical staff of Panagarh Customer Care Centre went to the premises of the complainant on 25.02.2016 for inspection of the installed meter and on inspection, the same was found o.k. with meter reading 1745 in presence of the complainant and thereafter the complainant was informed by a letter vide Memo No. 4486 dt. 31.03-2016, previously the energy bills for the period from August, 2015 to October, 2015 & November, 2015 to January, 2016 were raised on estimated basis as the meter reader of the O.Ps. was not allowed to take meter reading due to owner’s absence, subsequently to satisfy the complainant, the concerned Station Manager along with technical staff visited the complainant’s premises for rechecking the meter and to observe the consumption pattern, though the complainant was asked to stay at his house during inspection but the complainant & his family members did not allow them to check the meter, the electric meter is in order and on the basis of such correct meter reading, bills were raised. It is therefore claimed by these O.Ps. that the case is liable to be dismissed with cost.
DECISION WITH REASONS
In support of his case the complainant has relied upon the contents of the complaint, evidence on affidavit submitted on 06.09.2016 and photocopies of several documents like written complaint dt. 15.02.2016 made before the O.P. No. 2, track report & postal receipt related to the receipt of such complaint by the O.P. No. 2, complaint dt. 11.03.2016 made before the Divisional Manager, City Centre, Durgapur, six money receipts showing payment of electric bills for several months before issuance of the disputed bill, yelow card related to the electric meter in question, disputed electric bill dt. 26.01.2016 and his written argument submitted on 23.12.2016. On the other hand the O.Ps. have relied upon the contents of their W.V. supported by affidavit and their written argument submitted on 18.11.2016.
We carefully perused the contents of the pleadings and other materials on record. It is admitted by the parties to this case that the service connection having Consumer I.D. No. 500533339 under Panagarh Customer Care Centre stands in the name of the complainant Syed Kawsar Ali of Village Kanksa Rathtala, P.O. Panagarh Bazar, P.S. Kanksa, Burdwan. The complainant in his complaint has stated that the electricity meter was suddenly found defective from the month of August, 2015 as the same was not displaying correct units consumed and immediately in the month of August, 2015, the complainant intimated the matter to the O.P. No. 2 but the O.P. No. 2 without taking any steps to replace or to repair the defective electricity meter, issued flat bills for next consecutive six months and the complainant paid said bills. It is not disputed that the complainant paid all the previous dues except the last bill dt. 26.01.2016 raised for the period from 11.11.2015 to 26.01.2016 with the allegation that inspite of immediate intimation regarding defective meter, the O.P. No. 2 without taking any steps to replace or to repair the meter, raised such bill illegally showing excessive consumption of 398 units of electricity by the complainant. The complainant has further stated that on several occasions the complainant visited the office of the O.P. No. 2 with a request to cancel the bill dated 26.01.2016 and to issue fresh bill ascertaining the actual consumption but the O.Ps. did not pay any heed. The O.Ps. have denied this specific case stating that since instalation, the energy bills were raised as per meter reading but the energy bills for the period from August, 2015 to October, 2015 & November, 2015 to January, 2016 were raised on estimated basis as the meter reader of the O.Ps. was not allowed to take meter reading due to owner’s absence. The photocopy of the yellow card shows that the consumption units as on 10.08.2015 and consumption units as on 11.11.2015 were noted in specific two colomns of the yellow card but the meter reader’s signatures in those colomns are not found. The complainant is silent to say who made such notes in those colomns and as to why such two colomns do not bear the signatures of the meter reader. It is not disputed that the yellow card was kept in the premises of the complainant with the electric meter in question. The yellow card shows that except these two colomns other colomns are bearing the signatures of the meter reader. This circumstances support the case of the O.Ps. that the meter reader of the O.Ps. was not allowed to take meter reading due to owner’s absence and the energy bills for the period from August, 2015 to October, 2015 & November, 2015 to January, 2016 were raised on estimated basis. On scrutiny of the copy of the yellow card, it appears that the complainant consumed 83 units electricity within the period from 31.10.2013 to 28.01.2014, he consumed 98 units electricity within the period from 28.01.2014 to 24.04.2014, he consumed 178 units electricity within the period from 24.04.2014 to 06.08.2014, he consumed 174 units within the period from 06.08.2014 to 13.11.2014, he consumed 116 units electricity within the period from 13.11.2014 to 04.02.2015 and he consumed 201 units electricity within the period from 04.02.2015 to 04.05.2015. From this fact it appears that the consumption of electricity by the complainant was gradually increased. The complainant has admitted that flat bills for the period from August, 2015 to October, 2015 & November, 2015 to January, 2016 were raised. This admission partly supports the case of the O.Ps. The signature of meter reader in the copy of yellow card, supports that the meter reader got chance on 26.01.2016 to take the meter reading and he found that the consumption of electricity jumped from 00949 units to 1702 units within the period from 04.05.2015 to 26.01.2016. The plea of the O.Ps. that the energy bills for the period from August, 2015 to October, 2015 & November, 2015 to January, 2016 were raised on estimated basis as the meter reader was not allowed to take meter reading. So for such period the bills were not raised on the basis of actual meter reading. The copy of yellow card is justifying the strong reason of such jumping from 00949 units to 1702 units within the period from 04.05.2015 to 26.01.2016. Now the question whether the electric meter was defective as claimed by the complainant. The O.Ps. have strongly denied the case of the complainant that the electricity meter was suddenly found defective from the month of August, 2015 as the same was not displaying correct units consumed and on several occasions the complainant visited the office of the O.P. No. 2 with a request to issue correct bill replacing the bill dated 26.01.2016 but the O.Ps. did not pay any heed. The O.Ps. have brought a specific case stating that the complainant after receipt of the said bill dt. 26.01.2016, applied for rectification of the said bill and after getting such complain immediately the technical staff of Panagarh Customer Care Centre visited the premises of the complainant on 25.02.2016 for inspection of the installed meter and on inspection, the same was found o.k. with meter reading 1745 units in presence of the complainant and thereafter the complainant was informed by a letter vide Memo No. 4486 dt. 31.03-2016, and to satisfy the complainant, the concerned Station Manager along with technical staff prior intimation and requesting the complainant to be present in his premises, visited the complainant’s premises for rechecking the meter and to observe the consumption pattern, but the complainant & his family members did not allow them to check the meter. The O.Ps. have further case that the electric meter in question, is in order and on the basis of correct meter reading, bills as mentioned above, were raised. The complainant has made formal denial by adducing examination-in-chief supported by affidavit. No corroborative evidence has been adduced to prove that in the month of August,2015 and subsequently before the receipt of the bill dt. 26.01.2016 the complainant intimated the O.Ps. that the meter was found defective. No independent inspection of the meter has been made to show that there is/was defect in the meter in question. Only on the basis of evidence which is nothing but oath vrs. oath it could not be said that the electric meter in question was/is defective. The burden of proof in this connection (to prove that the meter in question is defective since the month of August, 2015) is lying upon the complainant, but he has failed to adduce corroborative and believable evidence to discharge his onus. In view of our discussions held herein before, we are of the opinion that the complainant has failed to prove his specific case that the bill dt. 26.01.2016 is inflated bill and the electric meter in question is defective and also there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.
So the complainant’s case fails. Fees paid, is correct. Hence, it is
Ordered
that the complaint case being No. 48 of 2016 is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps. without any cost.
Let the copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.
