West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/9/2014

Sri Manindra Mohan Chingri - Complainant(s)

Versus

West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

17 Oct 2014

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

 Complaint case No.09/2014                                                         Date of disposal:  17/10/2014                               

 BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT :  Mr. Sujit Kumar Das.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mrs. Debi Sengupta.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mr. Kapot Chattopadhyay.

  

    For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff : Mr. S.R. Alam,  Advocate.

    For the Defendant/O.P.S.                           : Mr. D. Das Mahapatra, Advocate.                                   

          

    Sri Manindra Mohan Chingri, S/o Late Shyam Sundar Chingri, religion- Hindu, Profession- Daily labour, resident of Dhekia, P.O. Nimpura & P.S. Kharagpur (Local), Dist- Paschim Medinipur…………..Complainant

                                                           Vs.

 West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. represented by it’s Station Manager, Malancha Group Electric Supply, having it’s office at Malancha, P.O. Nimpura, P.S. Kharagpur (Town), District-West Medinipur...……………Ops.

          The case of the complainant Sri Manindra Mohan Chingri, in short, is that the complainant used to reside jointly with his two brothers enjoying consumption of electricity through same meter. After separation of electric meter, the complainant started consuming electricity through old meter but electric bill for 390 unit in respect of October, November and December 2012 amounting to Rs. 2,105/- which is partly for joint consumption and partly by individual being the complainant himself.  After few months, the old meter was functioning not properly and according to meter reader, a new meter was installed on 9/10/2013.  On due checking of the said meter further bill for Rs.1,126.95/- was raised for consumption of 180 units on 4/01/2014.  In fact, the complainant used to consume more or less sixty units per months but the Op arbitrarily claims Rs.15,267/- and threatens for disconnection if not the same is prayed within 16/01/2014.  Stating the allegation the complainant has come before us for passing necessary direction to the Op for correction of the disputed bill relating to inoperative electric meter and to restrain them from disconnection.  

        The Op contested the case by filling written objection challenging that the case is not maintainable for want of cause of action and the same is barred by the principles of estoppel,

Contd……………..P/2

 

- ( 2 ) -

waiver and acquiescence.  In this connection, it is stated by the Op that the original meter being its no.EE-555259 was replaced by new meter on 10/07/2008 and again on the prayer of the complainant another new meter was installed on 9/10/2013.  Thus, the bill from 3/04/2013 to 8/10/2013 was claimed for 2060 units on the basis of calculation as per electricity regulation.  Thereafter, further physical inspection was held and it was detected the quantum of 555 unit was consumed and on that view a fresh bill was raised on 18/02/2014 which is legal valid and genuine and as such the complainant is estopped to challenge the same.  Stating the case the Op claims that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Op.  Thus, the case should be dismissed.          

        Upon the case of both parties the following issues are framed.

Issues:

1. Whether the case is maintainable in its present from?
2. Whether the complainant has any cause of action for presentation of this petition of complaint?
3. Whether the case is barred by jurisdiction?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled for getting relief as prayed for.?

 

Decision with reasons

Issue Nos.1 to 4:

              All the issues are taken up together for discussion as those are interlinked each other for the purpose of arriving at a correct decision in the dispute.

              Ld. Advocate for the complainant made his argument that previous reading was recorded on 5/10/2013 when the electricity was being consumed jointly and new meter has been installed on 9/10/2013.  As per recording of the running units in the yellow card, it is crystal clear that total units 180 was consumed as on 4/01/2014 by the complainant alone through the new meter.  From the date of installation till 4/01/2014, total units 180 can not support the disputed bill.  In view of the fact the complainant is not liable to pay the excessive amount of Rs.15,267/- .  Thus, raising fictitious bill against the complainant should be designated deficiency of service and as such the Op should be directed for submitting correct bill and also not to disconnect the supply of electricity.

           Ld. Advocate for the Op made his argument challenging that the forum is not competent to determine the nature of use of old meter and new meter including the mode of use by the complainant with his other brothers jointly.  In this connection, it is pointed out by the Ld. Advocate that the running reading 9376 was recorded on 3/04/2013 and after three months therefrom 9392 recorded on 8/07/2013 and again thereafter 9394 recorded on 5/10/2013 and immediately thereafter admittedly on 9/10/2013 new a meter has been installed. Changed meter dated

Contd……………P/3

 

- ( 3 ) -

9/10/2013 admittedly shows 180 running units was recorded on 4/01/2014.  This amount of 180 units was consumed by the complainant alone.  In consideration of the particulars as pointed out are appearing in the yellow card.  Now it the question to be logically determined that units from 9376 to 9394 from 3/04/2013 to 5/10/2013 jointly consumed which goes to justify the claim of this complainant.  In this context, the bill in question is very much rational and based on correct calculation in the light of reading of the new meter against the correct units consumed jointly during the period from 3/10/2013 up to 8/10/2013.  Referring to the yellow card and the fact of consumption of electricity, it is claimed by the Ld. Advocate that the bill raised by the Op against the complainant is free from any doubt and defect.  So, according to the Op, there is no deficiency of service as alleged by the complainant in his case. 

        We have carefully considered the case of both parties with due appreciation of the documentary evidence relied on by the parties.  It appears that during the period from 3/04/2013 to 8/10/2013, the energy through a single meter being its no.EE-555259 was jointly consumed by the complainant.  To this fact, there is no denial from the end of the complainant and it is also the fact admitted by the parties that the electricity consumed was held from running reading 9376 as on 3/04/2013 to 9394 as on 5/10/2013 which is very much surprising and difficult to accept by any prudent person for the reason of the running unit which was at a very low quantum of energy.

        Under the facts and circumstances, as discussed herein above, it is held and decided that there is no valid ground for holding the allegation of deficiency of service against the Op. Thus, the case should fail.

        All the issues are disposed of accordingly.        

               Hence,

                           It is Ordered,    

                                                    that the case be and the same is dismissed on contest  without cost.

Dictation & Corrected by me

              

         President                          Member                             Member                             President

                                                                                                                                     District Forum

                                                                                                                                Paschim Medinipur.