IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BANKURA.
Proceeding Case No.72 of 1997.
Sri Kanai Lal Nag, s/o Late Pravas Chandra Nag of Lalbazar, Bankura.
……………….Complainant.
V e r s u s
1. Station Superintendent, Lalbazar Sector, W.B.S.E.B, Lalbazar, P.O. &
Dist. Bankura.
2. W.B.S.E.B., represented by its Secretary, “Vidyut Bhavan” Block D J,
Sector – II, Bidhannagar, Cal – 700091.
……….…….Opposite Party.
Before :-
T. Basu. (President).
P.K.Mukhopadhyay. (Member).
A.Agnihotri. (Member).
Judgement : Dated 23.07.2009.
The present case is filed by one Kanailal Nag of Lalbazar, Bankura against the O.P. W.B.S.E.B. having an allegation of excess billing.
Case of the Petitioner / Complainant, in short, is that he is a consumer under the O.P. having service connection no. E7875/C-426 in respect of one room only in Lalbazar. Consumer is having electric connection for one Tube light, one Bulb and one ceiling fan in the said room which is / was being used as office room. He is having seven (7) shop rooms attached to the office room and the said seven rooms are let out to different tenants who were getting electric connection from the office room of the petitioner. In July, 1994 those shop rooms got separate electric connections from the O.P.. In the month of August, 1994 one new meter was installed in respect of the Complainant’s one office room only, but as the meter was not functioning properly, the same was taken back by the O.P. and direct connection was made. Since April, 1997 no bill was sent to the Petitioner by the O.P. . Thereafter, a notice under section 24 of the Indian Electricity Act was issued by the O.P. demanding a sum of Rs.10,317/- only for consumption period from April, 1994 to December, 1996. This demand is excessive and the Complainant never consumed so much of electricity. Thereafter, at the instance of the Complainant, local inspection of the Complainant’s office room was held by a Commissioner appointed by this Forum. Complainant prays for an order setting aside the notice under section 24 of the Indian Electricity Act with direction to prepare bills on the basis of actual consumption made by the Petitioner.
O.P. No.1(A) contests the case by filing a written version. Case of the O.P., in brief, is that commercial connection was given to the Complainant for his own business purpose but the seven (7) tenants of the Petitioner enjoyed electricity through the Complainants connection which was illegal. It was not within the knowledge of the O.P. earlier. However, all the bills were given to the Complainant as per “connected load”. Since no payment was made, notice under section 24 of the Indian Electricity Act was issued by the O.P.. From the month of February, 1992 the average monthly consumption of the Complainant was 130 units only. O.P. is agreeable to install new meter if the dues are paid by the Complainant. Notice under section 24 of the Indian Electricity Act was valid and legal for which the case of the Complainant is liable to be dismissed.
The main point for consideration is whether the Complainant is entitled to get any relief.
Decision with reasons
To establish their respective cases the parties did not adduce any verbal evidence. No documents were filed from the side of the contesting O.P. . Complainant, on the other hand, filed six-fold documents as per list only on 03.07.2009.
We have gone through the entire case record including the petition of complaint, written version, the report of the Local Inspection Commissioner as well as the documents relied upon by Complainant. It appears from the record that the notice under section 24 of the Indian Electricity Act was issued by the O.P. on 01.09.1997 which was challenged by the Complainant. The present case was filed in the same month and year. So, it is clear that the case was instituted well within the period of limitation, as prescribed under Consumer Protection Act.
It has been stated by the Complainant that in August, 1994 one new meter was installed in the office room of the Complainant and the same was subsequently taken back by the O.P as it was not functioning properly. At that time direct connection was made. This fact is not denied by the O.P.. It is really surprising that O.P, with full knowledge, allowed the Complainant to consume electric energy for years together through direct line and not through the meter. The consumer is supposed to make payment of bills prepared on the basis of actual consumption of energy, as reflected in the meter. There is no evidence within the four-corners of this record that effective step was taken by the O.P. for installation of a meter in order to do justice to both the parties. The reason is best known to the O.P. only. Here lies the weakness of the O.P. in this case. This is the cause why dispute between the parties arose. Had there been a meter we could have got the picture of actual consumption of energy units. It goes without saying that the O.P. travelled through a wrong track. For such irregularity the O.P. should be held responsible and none else. It appears from the paragraph 13 of the written version that till date no meter has been installed. Under such circumstances, the O.P. is to face the consequences and not the Complainant.
Local inspection was held at the instance of the Complainant. Local Inspection Commissioner too did not find any meter there. He found direct connection of electric energy from the road side electric pole. On inspection Ld. Commissioner found two points in use in the room – one for Tube light and the other for Ceiling fan. Report of the Commissioner rather supports the case the Complainant. We fail to understand the basis upon which the claim for Rs.10,317/- only was made. O.P. could not offer any interpretation or explanation in this regard.
It transpires from the notice under section 24 of the Indian Electricity Act dated 01.09.1997 that such demand was made by the O.P. for consumption period from April, 1994 to December, 1996. According to the Complainant, no bill was sent to him ; this contention of the Complainant is controverted by the O.P. in written version, but no effort was made to prove the same by any documentary evidence. Records are supposed to be maintained in the office of the O.P. only. O.P. also failed to establish that the energy line of the Complainant was diverted to the rooms of his seven (7) tenants who enjoyed the electric energy during the consumption period covered in the notice.
In the totality of what we have observed in the foregoing paragraphs we are of the view that deficiency in service exists from the side of the O.P. and that demand of the O.P. for Rs.10,317/- only is excessive and as such, the notice under section 24 of the Indian Electricity Act is to be set aside. For two / three points being used by the Complainant the monthly consumption of electricity may vary between 90 to 100 units. With this view, let average monthly consumption be fixed at 90 units only. Let fresh bill be prepared accordingly.
Case of the Complainant succeeds for which the Complainant is entitled to get relief. Accordingly, it is
Ordered
that the present case is allowed on contest without cost. The notice under section 24 of the Indian Electricity Act issued by the O.P. on 01.09.1997 is set aside.
O.P. is hereby directed to prepare fresh bills on the basis of average monthly consumption of 90 units of electric energy for the consumption period from April, 1994 to December, 1996 within sixty days from the date of this order.
Tags: W.B.S.E.B