State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Gopal Mondal vs A.E. And Station Manager, Balurghat ... on 6 June, 2017
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 First Appeal No. A/10/2016 (Arisen out of Order Dated 08/12/2015 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/7/2015 of District Dakshin Dinajpur) 1. Gopal Mondal S/o, Lt. Gobinda Nath Mandal, Vill - Mangalpur (Subhash Corner), P.O - Berltalapark, P.S - Balurghat, Dist - Dakshin Dinajpur. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. A.E. and Station Manager, Balurghat Customer Care Centre, WBSED Co. Ltd. P.O - B.T. Park, P.S - Balurghat, Dist - Dakshin Dinajpur. 2. Assistant Manager (P & A), Dakshin Dinajpur Division, W.B.S.E.D. Co. Ltd. P.O & P.S - Balurghat, Dist - Dakshin Dinajpur. 3. Division Engineer & Division Manager, Dakshin Dinajpur (D) Division, W.B.S.E.D. Co. Ltd. P.O - Beltalapark, P.S - Balurghat, Dist - Dakshin Dinajpur. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. SAMARESH PRASAD CHOWDHURY PRESIDING MEMBER For the Appellant: Mr. Soumen Halder, Advocate For the Respondent: Mr.Srijan Nayek.,Mr. Alok Mukhopadhyay, Mr. Souvik Chatterjee., Advocate Dated : 06 Jun 2017 Final Order / Judgement
Date of Filing - 07.01.2016 Date of Hearing - 16.05.2017 The instant appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is at the behest of the Complainant Sri Gopal Mandal to impeach the Judgement/Final Order dated 08.12.2015 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dakshin Dinajpur at Balurghat (for short, Ld. District Forum) in Consumer Complaint no. 07/2015 whereby the consumer complaint initiated by the Complainant under Section 12 of the Act was dismissed on contest against the Respondents without any order as to costs.
The Appellant herein being Complainant lodged the complaint asserting that he is a bonafide consumer under West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (WBSEDCL) being Consumer ID. No.400214563 having residence at Village - Mangalpur (Subhash Corner), P.O. - Beltalapark, P.S.- Balurghat and he was all along paying the electric bills regularly. However, the meter was found defective on 12.07.2014 and before the said date, the meter reading was recorded on 14.03.2014 mentioning the consumption unit as 2449 and the said meter was replaced by a new meter on 11.08.2014. The complainant alleged that he paid the last bill in respect of 2449 units and liable to pay the bill for the unit 2487 - 2449 = 38 units but all on a sudden the OPs sent a bill of Rs.5,265/- against 317 units. On 25.11.2014 OPs sent another bill for the month of October to December, 2014 showing the meter reading as 3448 units allegedly consumed by the complainant of 182 units and the bill amount was Rs.1,821/-. The complainant alleged that the bills sent by the WBSEDCL are fictitious. Therefore, the appellants approached the Ld. District Forum with prayer for a direction upon the opposite parties to correct the fictitious bills and to arrange of making suitable bills as per 50 units so consummated on monthly basis by the complainant, to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- and damages of Rs.40,000/-.
The Respondents being OPs by filing a written version disputed the claim of the complainant and it is stated that the old meter of the complainant be found defective a new meter was installed and as per provision of Regulation 3.1.8 an average bill was generated in the name of complainant and as such the complaint should be dismissed.
On perusal of the pleadings and other materials, the Ld. District Forum has framed several points, viz. - (a) whether the meter was found defective? (b) whether the bill generated by the OPs was prepared as per Regulation 3.1.8? (c) whether the complainant is liable to pay the amount on the basis of average consumption made by him during the previous year of the same period? (d) whether any excessive amount was charged by the OPs? (e) whether the complainant will be entitled to get relief as prayed for?
After assessing the materials on record, the Ld. District Forum by the impugned judgement and final order dismissed the complaint with an observation that the bill was generated under Regulation 3.1.8 through system generated process and there was no deficiency of services on the part of the opposite parties. Challenging the same, the complainant has come up in this Commission with the present appeal.
Ld. Advocate for the appellant has submitted that the Ld. District Forum has committed an error by deciding the matter without calling for any independent witness or any expert and as such the impugned order must be set aside.
Ld. Advocate for the respondents, on the other hand has contended that as per West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission, the appellant had an opportunity to refer the matter to the Regional Grievances Redressal Officer for ascertaining whether the bill raised by the WBSEDCL was excessive or not and when the appellant did not pray for appointment of an expert and further did not approach the appropriate authority as per provisions of WB Electricity Regulatory Commission, the Ld. District Forum was quite justified in dismissing the complaint.
I have considered the submission advanced by the Ld. Advocates appearing for the parties and also scrutinised the materials on record. The overwhelming evidence on record goes to show that the appellant is a consumer being Consumer Id. No.400214563 under WBSEDCL and the said meter was found defective on 12.07.2014. It is also evident that on 14.03.2014 the last reading was recorded as 2449 units. On the prayer of the appellant, on 15.07.2014 a new meter was replaced on 11.08.2014. After setting up of a new meter, a bill was raised showing present reading as 3266 units against previous reading of 2449 units equal to 817 units.
The appellant's contention is that the consumption of electrical units should not exceed 50 units per month in average and as per meter reading, they are liable to make payment of 38 units (2487 - 2449). As the meter was defective, the licensing authority issued average bill as per Regulation of 3.1.8 of WB Electricity Regulatory Commission on the basis of consumption made by the appellant during the same period in the previous year. In this regard, the Ld. District Forum has rightly observed - "Considering the submission of the respective parties and on perusal of the materials on record, it is admitted that the complainant's meter became defective and it was brought to the notice of the OPs and subsequently, the meter was replaced. Since, during the transition period, no bill was generated and accordingly as per Regulation of 3.1.8 the average bill was prepared on the basis of consumption made by the complainant during the same period of previous year, which was paid by the complainant to the OPs in response to the bill sent to the complainant of the previous year and no objection was raised by the complainant at that time regarding the electricity consumed by the complainant during that period".
The observation made by the Ld. District Forum appears to be relevant because the appellant cannot be allowed to take advantage of defect of meter. The bill was raised as per Regulation which has a statutory force and the same was issued on the basis of consumption made by the appellant during the same period of the previous year.
Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I have no hesitation to hold that the Ld. District Forum has rightly dismissed the complaint. Therefore, the appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.
Consequently, the appeal is dismissed on contest. However, there will be no order as to costs.
The Judgement/Final Order dated 08.12.2015 passed by the Ld. District Forum in CC/07/2015 is hereby affirmed.
The Registrar of this Commission is directed to send a copy of this order to the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, Unit-III for information. [HON'BLE MR. SAMARESH PRASAD CHOWDHURY] PRESIDING MEMBER