Consumer Complaint No. 78 of 2016
Date of filing: 29-04-2016 Date of disposal: 21-04-2016.
Present :
Sri Asoke Kr. Mandal Hon’ble President,
Smt. Silpi Majumer Hon’ble Member,
Sri Sri Pankaj Kr. Sinha Hon’ble Member,
- Tapan Kumar Chakraborty S/o. Ramkamal Chakraborty,
- Swapan Kumar Chakraborty S/o. Ramkamal Chakraborty,
- Ramkamal Chakraborty S/o. Ramakshay Chakraborty,
All are residents of Vill. & P.O. Kaity, Dist. Burdwan,
Pin 713423. Complainants.
VERSUS
- West Bengal State Electricity Distribution
Corporation Ltd. Madhabdihi Customer Care Centre,
Represented by its Station Manager, having
Its office at P.O. & P.S. Madhabdihi,
Dist. Burdwan, Pin- 713423.
- West Bengal State Electricity Distribution
Company Ltd. represented through its Chairmany,
Having its Office at Bidyut Bhaban, Block-C, 5th. Floor,
Sector- 2, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-91. Opposite Parties.
Appeared for the complainants : Ld. Advocate Suvro Chakraborty.
Appeared for the O. P. Nos. 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. to correct the bill related to the Electric Meter No. 5M049610 for the month of July, 2015 to September 2015, to pay sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for mental pain, agony & harassment of the complainants and to
pay Rs. 20,000/- as litigation cost to the complainants holding that there are deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps.
The complainant’s case in short is that one Bimalabala Bhattacharjee was the actual consumer having ID No. 512178036 of the O.Ps. and she used to consume the electricity through Electric Meter No. 5M049610. She had no biological son but she had two daughters namely Ramrenuka Chakraborty and Ramsebika Paladhi. Bimalabala Bhattacharjee was the grandmother of the complainant Nos. 1&2 and mother-in-law of the complainant No. 3. Due to family matters the complainants and Ramrenuka Chakraborty the mother of the complainant Nos. 1&2 and wife of complainant No. 3, started to live with Bimalabala Bhattacharjee in a joint mess, in the premises of Bimalabala Bhattacharjee and started to enjoy the electricity through said Electric Meter No. 5M049610 being beneficiaries of said electric service connection since 1960. Thereafter in the year 2010 Bimalabala Bhattacharjee died. On the basis of the application of the complainants, the O.Ps. replaced the electric meter by a new meter No. P-1440230 on 10.09.2012. Subsequently on 19.12.2015 Ramrenuka Chakraborty died. Till now the complainants have been consuming the electricity as beneficiaries of said electric service connection. Up to September, 2013 regular electric bills were issued and the complainants paid such bills. But in the month of March, 2014, the O.Ps. issued whimsical bill showing wrong meter readings which are not identical to the readings as shown in the yellow card. The complainants paid such bill raising verbal objection, to avoid disconnection. But the O.Ps. neglecting such verbal objection, issued another bill dt. 19.07.2014 claiming huge amount of Rs. 5,112/- mentioning wrong meter readings which are contradictory to the readings as shown in the yellow card. The complainants raising further objection, paid such bill to avoid disconnection. The O.Ps. again raised bill dt. 15.10.2014 mentioning wrong meter readings which are not corroborating the meter readings as shown in the yellow card and also mentioning “Meter P1440230 is seems defective” without making any investigation. The O.Ps. thereafter without taking appropriate steps, raised the bill dt. 17.06.2015 for the month of April, 2015 to June, 2015 claiming huge amount of Rs. 20,883/- mentioning previous meter reading as ‘1789’ and present meter reading as ‘4234’ which are contradictory to meter readings as shown in the previous bills and yellow card. Being aggrieved by such acts of the O.Ps. the complainants submitted also the written representations on 25.05.2015 , 02.06.2015 and on 13.10.2015. The O.Ps. did not pay any heed to that and they again whimsically issued bill for the month of July, 2015 to Sept. 2015 for an amount of Rs. 16,847/- including outstanding amount of Rs. 14,867/- and from this incident, it is clear that there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. and also for such illegal act of the O.Ps. the complainants have been suffering monitory loss, mental agony and harassment. Hence, this case with the prayers as mentioned above.
The O.Ps. contested this case by filing written version while stating inter-alia that the case is not maintainable, the complainants have no cause of action for this case, allegations brought by the complainant are false and malafide, the service connection having consumer ID No.512178036 under Madhabdihi Customer Care Centre stands in the name of Bimalabala Bhattacharjee of vill. Kaity within the District of Burdwan, the connection was effected for domestic purpose with contractual load of 0.45 KVA on 26.02.2007 and before effecting such connection, said Bimalabala Bhattacharjee enter into an agreement with the then WBSEB now termed as WBSEDCL and as such said Bimalabala Bhattacharjee was/is the recorded consumer of WBSEDCL, the complainants are not the consumers under WBSEDCL, none intimated about the death of said Bimalabala Bhattacharjee, after the alleged death of Bimalabala Bhattacharjee, none of the complainants came to change the service connection in his name after observing the necessary formalities, as per Electricity Rules & Regulations service connection may be changed in the name of any legal hair of deceased Bimalabala Bhattacharjee with the consent of rest legal hairs but till this day no such application has been made, as such the present complainants have got no authority to institute the present complaint, since installation, the energy bills were raised some times on meter reading basis when the meter was okay and sometimes on average/estimated basis when the performance of the meter was not proper, for the last few quarters the bills were raised on estimated basis, the bills for the period April, 2015 to June, 2015 and July, 2015 to September, 2015 as per meter reading but the same have not been paid, after getting complaint the men of the O.Ps. visited several times the premises in question but there was none to open the door, as such the O.Ps. failed to inspect the meter, subsequently the meter was replaced by new one on 21.09.2013, due to door locked the bill for July to September, 2015 was raised on estimated basis for Rs. 2034/- , since after 22.10.2014 bills were not paid, as such all the dues amounting to Rs. 21,306.99 was included in the first month bill amount i.e. July, 2015 and they paid only Rs. 500/-. It has been further stated by these O.ps. that in view of the provision of Section-42(5) and 42(6) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Rules and Regulations framed/made there under, if there is any grievance with regard to the mode of preparation of billing or its payment or correctness of meter, that should be ventilated before the Regulatory Commission or before the person or authority empowered by the said Act and as such this Forum has no jurisdiction to try this case. It is therefore, claimed by these O.Ps. that this case is liable to be dismissed with cost.
DECISION WITH REASONS
To prove their case the complainants have submitted photocopies of one Yellow Card, electricity bill dt. 20.02.2014 for bill months April to June 2014, bill dt. 19.07.2014 for bill months July to Spt. 2014, bill dt. 15.10.2014 for bill months Oct. to Dec. 2014, bill dt. 17.06.2015 for bill months April to June 2015 and spot bill dt. 31.08.2015 for bill months July. to Sept. 2015, applications dated 15.5.2015, 27.05.2015 and 05.10.2015 issued by one Ramrenuka Chakraborty to the Station Superintendent & Station Manager Madhabdihi, Burdwan. The complainant has not submitted any evidence on affidavit supporting the case as made out in the complaint. On the other hand no evidence has been adduced from the side of the O.Ps. but they have submitted their written argument in support of their W.V.
We carefully perused the contents of the complaint petition, the written version and the documents as mentioned. It is not disputed that the service connection having consumer ID No.512178036 under Madhabdihi Customer Care Centre stands in the name of Bimalabala Bhattacharjee of vill. Kaity within the District of Burdwan, the connection was effected for domestic purpose with contractual load of 0.45 KVA on 26.02.2007 and before effecting such connection, said Bimalabala Bhattacharjee enter into an agreement with the then WBSEB now termed as WBSEDCL and as such said Bimalabala Bhattacharjee was the recorded consumer of WBSEDCL. It is admitted by the parties that the O.Ps. replaced the electric meter by a new meter No. P-1440230 on 10.09.2012. By filing this complainant the complainants have not made any prayer to direct the O.Ps. to correct the bill dt. 20.02.2014 for bill months April to June 2014, bill dt. 19.07.2014 for bill months July to Spt. 2014, bill dt. 15.10.2014 for bill months Oct. to Dec. 2014, bill issued for the months of January to March 2015 copy of which has not been filed in this case and bill dt. 17.06.2015 for bill months April to June 2015 though in complaint they have stated that most of those bills were raised illegally. The fact that the bills raised up to the bill months Oct. to Dec. 2014 have been paid, is not denied by the parties. It is not the case of the complainants that they have paid the entire bill amount claimed for the bill months Jan. to Mach 2015, April to June 2015 and July to Sept. 2015. The O.Ps. have claimed that since after 22.10.2014 except Rs. 500/- as claimed in the bill for the months of Oct. 2014 to Dec. 2014, no bill connected with the meter in question, was paid, as such all the dues were included in the first month bill amount i,e, July, 2015 under the bill for the bill months July. to Sept. 2015 in which total current bill amount of Rs. 2034/- and balance amount of Rs. 14867/- adding the same with first month bill amount i,e, July, 2015, were claimed and as such there is/was no irregularities in that matter. From the side of the complainant no evidence on affidavit nor receipts showing payment of bills have been submitted. So the contents of the pleadings is nothing but oath versus oath. In the complaint the complainants have not stated that the meter in question is defective one and the same is/was not working properly. Moreover they have stated that the O.Ps. without any enquiry or investigation, made a note in the bill dt. 15.10.2014 “Meter P1440230 is seems defective”. As the complaint is silent related to the defect in meter, the contents related to the defect in meter, of the letters dt. 15.5.2015, 27.05.2015 and 05.10.2015 should not be considered. The complainants have relied upon the photo copy the yellow card the original of which is not in the custody of the O.Ps. but same should be in the custody of the consumer or in the custody of her legal heirs. The O.Ps. have denied the case of contradictory notes in yellow card and bills as brought by the complainants and have brought a specific case that since last some quarters the bills were raised on estimated basis as the door of the premises was kept locked. This averment of the O.Ps. has not been challenged by the complainants by adducing evidence on affidavit. So there was chance of manipulating the yellow card. It is essential to say that the meter readings since after 07.01.2015 including the meter reading as shown in such spot bill, are not reflected in the yellow card. The bill for the months of July to Sept. 2015, is a spot bill which was prepared in presence of the complainants after taking meter reading on the sport. So the present meter reading as shown in such bill is correct and at the time of preparation of such bill the yellow card was not handed over to spot meter reader. As the complainant have brought this case, the burden of proof is lying upon them to prove their case by adducing corroborative evidence. But the complainants have failed to do so. Accordingly the deficiency in service as alleged has not been proved against the O.Ps.
It has already been mentioned in foregoing lines that it is not disputed that the service connection having consumer ID No.512178036 under Madhabdihi Customer Care Centre stands in the name of Bimalabala Bhattacharjee of vill. Kaity within the District of Burdwan, the connection was effected for domestic purpose with contractual load of 0.45 KVA on 26.02.2007 and before effecting such connection, said Bimalabala Bhattacharjee enter into an agreement with the then WBSEB now termed as WBSEDCL and as such said Bimalabala Bhattacharjee was the recorded consumer of WBSEDCL and also said meter is still in the name of Bimalabala Bhattacharjee. From the admission of the complainants, it appears that Bimalabala Bhattacharjee died in the year 2010 leaving behind her two daughters namely Ramrenuka Chakraborty and Ramsebika Paladhi only as her legal heirs and subsequently Ramrenuka Chakraborty died on 19.12.2015 and the present complainant Nos. 1&2 are the sons and complainant No. 3 was the husband of said deceased Ramrenuka Chakraborty. From the materials on record, the present complainants are/were not the legal heirs of Bimalabala Bhattacharjee and they are the legal heirs of Ramrenuka Chakraborty. So this case has not been filed by any of the legal heirs of Bimalabala Bhattacharjee. The service connection or the electric meter in question had/has not been transferred in the name of any of the complainants nor in the name of any legal heir of Bimalabala Bhattacharjee. None of said Ramrenuka Chakraborty and Ramsebika Paladhi has been made party in this case. As per complaint Ramrenuka Chakraborty died on 19.12.2015. The complainants have claimed that the complainants and Ramrenuka Chakraborty the mother of the complainant Nos. 1&2 and wife of complainant No. 3, started to live with Bimalabala Bhattacharjee in a joint mess in the premises of Bimalabala Bhattacharjee and started to enjoy the electricity through said Electric Meter No. 5M049610 being beneficiaries of said electric service connection since 1960. Now the question whether the complainants only being legal heirs of Ramrenuka Chakraborty are entitled to claim themselves as beneficiaries of this service connection. In this connection the complainants have relied upon the observations of the Hon’able Madhya Pradesh State Commission made in Harish Kumar versus Chief Engineer, M.P. Electricity Board & Others case reported in [1993] 2 CPR 320 / [1993] 1 CPJ 299. We carefully have gone through the above observations of the Hon’able Madhya Pradesh State Commission. In Harish Kumar versus Chief Engineer, M.P. Electricity Board & Others case, the complainant Harish Kumar being son heir of deceased Mohanlal came up with a case that after the death of his father he had been using the electric supply through the connection taken in the name of his father Mohanlal and as such he was a beneficiary. In said case the Hon’able Madhya Pradesh State Commission has been pleased to observe that the complainant Harish Kumar being the son heir of Mohanlal in whose name the connection was taken, has to be taken to be a beneficiary of electric supply with the approval of all other heirs and so he is a consumer. These complainants are not the legal heirs of Bimalabala Bhattacharjee but they are the legal heirs of deceased Ramrenuka Chakraborty. No evidence has been adduced showing that the legal heir/heirs has/ have given approval to enjoy electricity through the connection taken in name of Bimalabala Bhattacharjee by the complainants. In this circumstances we are of the opinion that the above observation of the Hon’able Madhya Pradesh State Commission is not applicable here and accordingly these complainants are not the beneficiaries of the connection in question and they are not the consumers.
In view of the above discussions, the complaint fails.
Fees paid is correct.
Hence, it is
Ordered
that the C.C. No. 78/2016 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
