IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BANKURA.
Proceeding Case No.13 of 1995.
Champa Rani Banerjee, Vill & P.O. Kushadeep, P.S. Patrasayer, Dist. Bankura.
……………….Complainant.
V e r s u s
Station Superintendent, Group Electric Supply, Patrasayer, W.B.S.E.B., P.O. Patrasayer, Dist. Bankura.
……….…….Opposite Party.
Before:-
SHRI T. BASU PRESIDENT
SMT. A. AGNIHOTRI MEMBER
SHRI S. L. SUKUL MEMBER
For the Complainant : Mr. Tapan Dey Advocate
For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Gopal Ghosh Advocate
Judgement, Dated : 10.12.2009.
The present case was registered on the basis of a petition of complaint filed by one Champa Rani Banerjee, a resident of Village – Kushadeep, P.S. Patrasayer in the District of Bankura against the O.P. Station Superintendent, Group Electric Supply, Patrasayer, W.B.S.E.B., with an allegation of excess billing and deficiency in service.
Case of the Petitioner, as made out in the petition of complaint is that the Complainant is a consumer under the O.P. having Service Connection No.341/R/I-107 under category
“Industrial”. She runs a wheat grinding machine in her locality. From 1983 to 1987 Complainant paid Rs.350/- per month being energy consumption charge, as per meter reading. In 1988 it was detected that the meter was not functioning properly and this fact was reported to the O.P.. Complainant, for installation of a new meter, deposited the required amount of money in the office of the O.P.. But the meter was not replaced by a new one. In the mean time O.P. went on demanding more and more units of energy. From 1991 to September, 1994 O.P. demanded 900 units of energy per month on an average. O.P. issued one notice under section 24 under Electricity Act on 04.01.1995 demanding Rs.39,116.25 paisa only being outstanding dues for April, 1994 to September, 1994. Ultimately, on 01.10.1994 the defective meter was replaced by a new one. According to the Complainant the notice and demand of the O.P. are baseless, arbitrary, wrong and fictitious. The Complainant prays for proper relief.
On getting notice issued by this Forum, the O.P. entered appearance and contested the case by filing a Written Version denying the material allegations made against him. Case of the O.P., in short, is that the Complainant is enjoying electricity under “Industrial” category and the connected load is 15 H.P. in Service Connection No.341/R/I – 107. It is not true that the Complainant was running a wheat grinding machine; she was actually operating one husking machine through the aforesaid service connection. Herein before, the Petitioner filed two cases bearing no.97 of 1994 and 62 of 1995 challenging the bills claiming outstanding dues. In case the meter was defective the Petitioner was bound to pay the bill according to “load average” as per Circular of the Board and similarly, if the consumption was less than the “target consumption” the consumer was to pay AMGR to the Board. The demand notice, therefore, was valid and legal for which the case of the Complainant is liable to be dismissed.
The main points for consideration are whether the demand of the O.P. was justified and whether there was any deficiency in service from the side of the O.P..
Decision with reasons
To establish their respective cases the parties did not prefer adducing any verbal evidence.
Status of the Complainant as consumer is nowhere challenged by the O.P.. The point relating to limitation period too is not challenged. Yet we have, on our own motion, examined the same and we are sure that the present Complainant is a “Consumer” as per the definition of the word laid down under section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. Secondly, the petition of complaint, as we find, was presented well within the period of limitation as prescribed under section 24(A) of the Act.
It transpires from the case record that this Complainant filed three cases altogether including the present one against the same O.P. with the very same allegation of excess billing. The other two cases bear numbers P.C. 97 of 1994 and P.C. 62 of 1995. Those two case records were called for by us and we perused the same. It is found that the subject matter in all the three cases is same, only the consumption period differs. P.C. 97 of 1994 and P.C. 62 of 1995 are disposed of finally after hearing the parties. In both the cases relief in part was granted to the Complainant / Petitioner. Strictly speaking, as we understand, all the three cases ought to have heard analogously for sake of convenience. However, it was not so done. Since the two matters out of three have already been disposed of after full hearing and Judgment & Order was delivered and pronounced assigning reasons the present case too should be guided by the spirit of the orders passed in those two disposed of case records. In other words, conclusion in this case be drawn in the same light and view given in the previous two cases. It is pertinent to note here that the orders passed in previous two cases were accepted by the O.P.. Actually, the notice under section 24 of the Indian Electricity Act issued on 04.01.1995 by the O.P. demanding Rs.39,116.25 paisa only for consumption period from April, 1994 to September, 1994 be declared to be void. Fresh bill may be ordered to be prepared for consumption of electric energy @ 400 units per month. Hence, it is
Ordered
That the present case is allowed on contest.
Notice under section 24 of the Indian Electricity Act issued on 04.01.1994 by the O.P. in the name of the Complainant (Service Connection No.341/R/I – 107) demanding Rs.39,116.25 paisa only for consumption period from April 1994 to September, 1994 stands cancelled. O.P. to prepare fresh bill for the aforesaid consumption period indicating consumption of electric energy @ 400 units per month on an average at the rate prevailing in the relevant period. O.P. to comply with this direction within sixty days from the date of this order the Complainant shall remain duty-bound to clear up the bills within the date to be specified therein subject to adjustment of the amount of money already deposited by the Complainant.
No order is passed as to cost.
The case is thus disposed of.
Copies of this Judgment & Order be supplied to the parties free of cost.