DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR,

 KOLKATA-700 0144

      C.C. CASE NO. __80_ _ OF ___2017

DATE OF FILING :_23.06.2017         DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT:  _3.8.2018

Present                 :   President       :   Ananta Kumar Kapri

                                 Member(s)    :    Subrata Sarker 

COMPLAINANT   :             Sri Rajib Dhole, son of Supriya Dhole of Vill. Hariharpur, P.O Mallickpur, P.S Sonarpur, Dist. South 24-Parganas.

•  VERSUS  -

O.P/O.Ps                    : West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. of Mahinagar Gr. Electric Supply Khasmullick, D. Gobindapur, P.S Sonarpur, Dist. South 24-Parganas.                                                                                  

_______________________________________________________________________

                                                J  U  D  G  M  E  N  T

Sri Ananta Kumar  Kapri, President

              The facts leading to the filing of the instant case by the complainant may be epitomized as follows.

               The complainant is a domestic consumer having Connection no.113010386 from the O.P. Since 18.10.2014 to 29.9.2016 .Meter reading of the complainant was within a reasonable range and it varied between 6189 and 8301. But, all on a sudden, to the utter surprise of the complainant, it jumped to 17492 on 10.1.2017 during the period from 29.9.2016 to 20.1.2017 and consequent to that meter reading a highly inflated electric bill of Rs.97,878/- was supplied to the complainant by the O.P. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.P in the matter of issuing an inflated bill, complainant has filed the instant case ,praying for cancellation of the said bill, compensation etc. Hence, arises the instant case.

              Written statement is filed by the O.P, wherein it is mainly contended that as soon as the information of excessive meter reading was given to him by the complainant on 17.1.2017, a check meter  was placed beside the existing meter of the complainant. After having placed the check meter it has been found that the existing meter reading of the complainant was correct and that there was no defect in the said meter. The allegation of the complainant is false and absurd and, therefore, it should be dismissed in limini with cost.

              Upon the averments of the parties, the following points are formulated for consideration.

POINT FOR DETERMINATION

1. Is  the O.P guilty of deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant?
2. Is the complainant entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for ?

                 Evidence on affidavit is filed by the complainant  and the O.P both. Questionnaire, reply and BNA filed herein are kept in the record after consideration. 

DECISION WITH REASONS

Point no.1, 2  :

              Already heard the submissions of Ld. Lawyers ,appearing for the parties . Perused the petition of complaint, written version of the O.P and the materials on record. Considered all these.

               It is submitted on behalf of the O.P that a check meter was placed in the house of the complainant besides the existing meter on 17.1.2017 to test the correctness of the existing meter. The meter reading of check meter was taken and it was found that the existing meter was correct in all respect. So, according to the O.P, there is no fault in the existing meter of the complainant and, therefore, there is no cause of action arising for the complainant to file the instant case.

               It is fact that a check meter was placed beside the existing meter of the complainant on 17.1.2017 by the O.P to test the genuineness of the existing meter of the complainant. The meter reading of the check meter and also the meter reading of the existing meter were recorded by the O.P Department and this recording of the two meters is also noted on the Yellow Card filed herein by the complainant. The check meter readings are 1724 on 17.1.2017 and 1997 on 25.3.2017. At the same time ,meter reading of existing meter was also taken and the meter reading of existing meter on 17.1.2017 is 17515 and 17787 on 25.3.2017. During the aforesaid check period it is found that the existing meter recorded 272 units and the check meter recorded 273 units which are almost equal. Regards being had to all these statistical data as obtained from the two meters, we do not feel any kind of hesitation to say that there is no defect in the existing meter of the complainant. The disputed bill is prepared on meter reading of existing meter of the complainant and there is nothing wrong in the preparation of the said bill. The said bill can never be called an inflated bill. It has been prepared by the O.P in keeping with the energy consumed by the complainant during that period. There is no cause of action arisen in favour of the complainant to bring the instant case. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P in so far as the preparation of the disputed bill is concerned.

              In the result, the case fails.

               Hence,

ORDERED

             That the complaint case be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OP.P, but without any cost.

         Let a free copy of this order be given to the parties concerned at once.   

                                                                                                                   President

I / We agree

                                                                             Member     

Dictated and corrected by me

                           President