State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Station Manager vs Sri Palash Banerjee on 11 June, 2014
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission West Bengal 11A, MIRZA GHALIB STREET, KOLKATA-700 087. S.C. CASE NO- FA/1189/13 (Arisen out of Order Dt. 04/09/13 in Case No. CC/22/2013 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Alipore ) DATE OF FILING: 01.11.13 DATE OF FINAL ORDER: 11.06.14 APPELLANT: 1. Station Manager, State Electricity Board , Boalia Customer Care Centre, Boalia, P.O. Garia, Kolkata- 84. RESPONDENT : 1. Sri Palash Banerjee, 400/5, Radha Housing Daspara, P.O. Dhalua, Kolkata0 700 152. BEFORE HONBLE MEMBER : Sri Debasis Bhattacharya. HONBLE MEMBER : Sri Jagannath Bag. FOR THE APPELLANT : Mr. Srijan Nayak, Mr. Alok Mukhopadhyay, Mr. Souvik Chatterjee, Ld. Advocates. FOR THE RESPONDENT: In Person., _____________________________________________________________________________ : O R D E R :
MR. J.BAG, LD. MEMBER The present appeal is directed against the Order dated 04.09.2013 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South 24 Parganas, in CC No. 22 of 2013, whereby, the complaint was allowed on contest with cost against the OPs.
The complaint, in brief , was as follows:
Complainant received an electricity bill of Rs.14,144/- only on 16.10.12 for the months of October , November and December 2012 which appeared to be abnormally high against 1879 units while the preceding bills of January / April /July 2012 were against 150/192/146 units respectively . After having paid an amount of Rs.4,842/-, he on 17.
10 12 sent a complaint letter. Some staff of OP had come to check up the meter of the Complainant on 18.10.2012 in his absence. On 08.11.12 a staff of the OP came to the complainants premises and installed a parallel meter . The Complainant had reason to believe that the OPs staff had come to rectify the defective meter on 18.10.12 ,as learnt from one of his neighbours, and it was because of some defect in the meter that the consumption units were so high leading to abnormal bill. A complaint was filed before the Ld. Forum below with the prayer for direction upon the OP to refund the amount paid by the Complainant to the tune of Rs.13,000/- and also for payment of compensation of Rs.10,000/- apart from litigation cost.
The complaint was contested by filing of written version, wherein, all material allegations were denied . It was submitted that after getting complaint check meter was installed and after study , it was found that the existing meter read with a little percentage of error and the company took action regarding adjustment of excess units . There was no deficiency in service and the case was not maintainable.
Ld. Forum below observed that there was clear admission of OP in their written version about defect in the meter of the Complainant . Relying upon the decision in Civil Appeal No. 5466 /12 the case was found to be maintainable and it was ordered that the OP shall adjust the excess unit with the next bill, if not done earlier, and shall pay cost of Rs. 10,000/- and compensation of Rs. 10,000/- within one month from the date of order , failing which the said amount shall carry an interest @ 10 % p.a. from the date of default till realization. It was also ordered that OP/ SEB will be at liberty to realize the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with interest if any from the staff concerned who is actually responsible for deficiency in service and who attempted adoption of unfair trade practice.
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of the Ld. Forum below , the Appellant has come up before this Commission on certain grounds with prayer for direction to set aside the impugned order.
Ld. Advocate appearing for the Appellant submitted that the complaint contained a billing dispute which should have been referred to the Grievance Redressal Officer first and thereafter , in case of dissatisfaction by any of the parties, an appeal could be preferred before the Ld. Ombudsman. It was further submitted that the bill was prepared on the basis of units consumed in summer season and at that time the Complainant used AC machine installed at his premises. It was also submitted that appropriate steps were taken by the company by installing a check meter and difference of consumption has already been adjusted in favour of the Complainant. The Complainant neither suffered any disconnection nor any loss . It was argued that , as decided by the Honble Supreme Court and reported in 1997Vol-1 CHN (SC) 50, CESC Ltd. vs- N.M. Banka and Ors a billing dispute shall be referred to the Chief Electrical Engineer for rectification order . In this case no such step was taken by the Complainant and Ld. Forum below having ignored the submission of the Complainant, the impugned order deserves to be set aside .
Respondent / Complainant appearing in person submitted that the dispute is mainly relating to the defective meter which the Appellant should have repaired or changed before raising bill on the basis of reading of units from the defective meter. The Appellants staff visited his premises while he was absent on 17.10.2012 and opened the meter in his absence , just to rectify the defect already existing in the meter. This was an attempt to cover up their fault in not checking the meter as soon as abnormal increase in meter reading was detected by them. It was also submitted that he , as per rule deposited 1/4th of the billed amount of Rs. 14,144/- but the OP neglected to replace the defective meter after proper checking. He had to suffer harassment and mental agony because of the deficiency in service on the part of the OP/Appellant. Ld. Forum below being convinced about deficiency in service passed the order in a reasoned manner. There is no question of setting aside the impugned order.
Decision with Reasons We have gone through the Memorandum of appeal together with the impugned order , the petition of complaint and the written version submitted by the OP before the Ld. Forum below.
OP /Appellant appears to have admitted in their written version that the old existing meter exhibited a little percentage of error against which the company has already taken action regarding adjustment of excess unit claimed from the next quarter i.e. April, May , June of 2013 ( W.V. Page 3 , Paragraph 3 / ( v ) . It has not , however, been made clear what exact number of units they have adjusted because of detection of defect in the existing meter leading to error in recording of units of consumption of electricity . No reply to the letter of the Complainant dated 31st October 2012 appears to have been sent, though it was a case about defective meter which has been pointed out by the Respondent / Complainant in his letter dated 31.10.12 and also in another letter dated 26.11.12. On the contrary , he was asked to meet one staff of the Bill section which the Complainant did not oblige. There is no doubt that the defective meter gave rise to abnormal bill .The deficiency in service on the part of the Appellant can not be denied by them. Ld. Forum below having examined the complaint and other records decided to allow a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation apart from Rs. 10,000/- as costs.
Going by the above facts we are of the considered view that the OP/Appellant should have replaced the defective meter in time and deficiency in service was thereby caused . However, Ld. Forum imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000/-, inter alia, which appears to be on a higher side and needs to be amended . Hence, Ordered that the appeal be and the same is allowed in part and that the impugned order shall be modified to the effect that a cost of Rs. 3,000/- in place of Rs.10,000/- shall be paid by the OP to the Complainant. Other parts of the impugned order shall remain unchanged. There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/ Sd/ Sri Jagannath Bag Sri Debasis Bhattacharya (Member) (Member)