DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PURULIA



CONSUMER COMLAINT No. 15 OF 2007



Date of filing: 3rd April 2007

Date of Order: 17th March 2009



Complainant Opposite Party

Sri Atanu Sarkar, 1. The Assistant Engineer,

S/o. Late Badal Sarkar, Purulia Electric Supply,

Sarkar Para, Purulia, West Bengal State Electricity Board, Purulia,

P.O., P.S. & Dist: Purulia. Central Land Dev. Bank’s Building, Gr.Floor,

P.O., P.S. & Dist: Purulia.

2. Divisional Manager (O&M) Division, Purulia,

West Bengal State electricity Board,

Zilla Parishad Building, Purulia,

P.O., P.S. & Dist: Purulia.



Present: 1. Shri R.N. Sarkar, President.

2. Sri A. Sinha, Member.

3. Smt. S. Sengupta (Santra), Member.





For the Complainant : Sri P. Roy, Adv.

For the O.P. (s) : Sri N.S. Mukherjee, Adv.





Order No. 37, dated 17.3.2009/C.C.No. 15 of 2007



Very briefly the facts leading to the filing of the complaint were that the complainant was a consumer of the O.P. No. 1 (Assistant. Engineer, Purulia WBSEB) and O.P. No. 2 (Divisional Manager O&M Division, WBSEB, Purulia) having Service Connection No. 19387, Consumer No. D-032345 since 01.12.2005. The complainant is a practicing lawyer under judgeship of Purulia who alleged that from the date of installation of electricity the average consumption upto 30.3.06 was 3.62 units per day. In the month of October 2006 he received bill dt. 17.10.06 for the period from 30.6.06 to 04.10.06 showing a consumption of 1636 units within 97 days.

Thereafter the complainant disputed the bill and issued a letter with a request to regenerate the bill. The O.P. sent their technical staff in his absence. After inspection of the meter, which was found satisfactory he was informed. The complainant. The complainant in order to avoid disconnection deposited the first installment of the bill dt. 17.10.06 and subsequently filed a complaint before this Forum u/S. 12 of the C.P.Act vide C.C. No. 52/06. During pendency of the C.C. Case No. 52/06 a discussion was held on 16.11.06 in the chamber of O.P. No. 2 in presence of the Govt. pleader. As per decision the complainant had withdrawn the C.C. case No. 52/06 as the O.P. admitted to prepare average bill against bill dt. 17.10.06. One new meter was installed on 05.12.06 and thereafter the complainant received bill dt. 06.12.06 for the aforesaid disputed period for 420 units. Meter reading of a new test meter was taken on 05.01.07 in presence of complainant and the same was removed. The O.P. by letter dt. 28.3.07 informed the complainant that percentage of errors in the existing meter found to 0.5% slow reading which was negligible and also sent a bill dt. 22.3.07 for 1636 unit for the above disputed period. This gives rise to the instant complaint.



Both the O.Ps. have filed joint written version denying the material allegations. The O.Ps. have specifically admitted that the complainants disputed bill dt. 17.10.06 for 1636 units inspite of testing and inspection of the meter in questions. On receipt of the complaint of excess reading for the present complainant and he being not satisfied with the action of the O.Ps. files C.C. Case No. 52/06 before this Forum. The O.Ps. also admitted that as per written resolution of the meeting in the chamber of O.P. No. 2 the complainant was satisfied and he had withdrawn the C.C. Case No. 52/06 which he reported in writing to O.P. No. 2. The O.Ps. have further submitted that as per resolution dt. 30.11.2006 and in order to check the accuracy of the existing meter one new meter in service was installed in presence of the complainant and reading of both the meters were noted in a sheet of paper after one month of consumption of electricity and the new meter was withdrawn. Percentage of error in the existing meter found to 0.5% slow reading and accordingly revised bill after adjustment of the first installment of the disputed bill was sent to the complainant. The O.Ps. have strongly

resisted the contention of the complainant regarding the negligency and deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps. and prays for dismissal of complaint with heavy compensatory cost.



On pleading of the both parties the following points have been emerged for effective disposal of the case.

1) Whether the service of the O.Ps. suffer from deficiency?

2) Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?



Points No. 1&2:



Decision with reasons:



Both the points are taken together for consideration as they are interlinked.



The complainant was examined as P.W.1 who also filed his affidavit-in-chief. He filed the following Xerox copies of the electric bills and correspondences between himself and the O.P. having Annexure No. “A” to “K” which were marked Exhibit “1” to “11” and also filed Xerox copies of bill dated 14.01.2008, 11.4.2008, 10.7.2008 & 25.10.2008 which were marked Exhibit. “12” to “15” respectively after objection. The annexed documents were the bill dt. 19.4.2006 (Exbt.1) bill dt. 30.6.2006 (Exbt. 1/1), bill dt. 04.10.2006 (Exbt. 2), Advocates letter dt. 23.10.2006 to the O.P. No. 1 (Exbt. 3), Courier Receipt dt 23.10.2006 (Exbt. 4), MEC Express courier dt. 23.10.2006 (Exbt. 5), letter dt. 3.11.2006 of O.P. No. 1 (Exbt. 6), letter dt. 06.11.2006 of complainant to O.P. No. 1 (Exbt. 7), bill dt. 6.12.2006 (Exbt. 8), Records Sheet of installation of new meter in series (Exbt. 9). letter dt. 28.3.2007 of O.P. No. 1 to complainant (Exbt. 10) and bill dt. 22.3.2007 regenerated (Exbt.11).



It appears from the records that on prayer of the complainant for testing of disputed meter no. BS/044463 by National Test House, Kolkata, the aforesaid meter was removed, properly packed and sealed after installation of the new meter and produced the same in Forum on

28.11.2007. Before sending the meter in question for testing the Director, National Test House, Alipore, Kolkata was requested to communicate the testing fees, the reply of which was received. The complainant appeared to have been reluctant to bear the cost of Rs. 3034=00 for test for accuracy requirement and filed application which was considered and accepted vide Order No. 30, dt. 17.11.2008. In cross-examination the complainant is found to have admitted the above facts although he had denied the suggestion of the O.P. that the meter in question was not defective and the meter reading found correct by installing parallel meter.



Let us see the evidences adduced by the O.Ps. to defend the case of the complainant. O.P.W.1 was examined on S/A. who had filed a joined W/V drafted after consultation of all documents. In cross-examination he stated that the meter in question was tested by his technical staff and on the basis of the report they replied to the advocate’s letter (Exbt. 6). O.P.W.1 had filed Xerox copies of the petition of the complainant for withdrawal of Forum Case having being satisfied in the discussion with O.P. No. 2 (Exbt. A), minutes of the meeting with O.P. No. 2 on 30.11.2006 (Exbt. B), the result of test reading of installation of one new meter in series with the existing meter (Exbt. C), proposal for settlement of bill disputes submitted to O.P. No. 2 (Exbt. D), letter dt. 28.3.2007 to the complainant relating to the result of test reading of installation of one new meter in series with the existing meter (Exbt. E), regenerated bill dt. 17.10.2006 after adjustment of first installment amount (Exbt. F), bill dt. 04.10.2007 for bill month October 2007 to December 2007. The O.Ps had claimed that the allegation of complainant for excessive reading in bill dt. 17.10.2006 was attended without undue delay and in order to doing so the meter in question was tested by their staff, result of such test was communicated. Even after institution of this C.C. No. 52/06 and on receipt of notice O.Ps. held discussion with complainant and gave assurance of providing natural justice which was conveyed by the complainant in writing (Exbt. A). It was also argued that in response to the discussion and assurance of natural justice the O.Ps. held meeting on 30.11.2006 with complainant and other officials of WBSEB, prepared the minutes of the meeting about next course of action to be taken by the O.P. to provide natural justice. Test meter was installed and result of test

was communicated in writing to the complainant (Ext. E) with regenerated bill (Ext. F) after adjustment of first installment. It was vehemently urged that inspite of persuading the agreed measures to test the accuracy of meter of consumer after observing the formalities the complainant could be convinced that there was no defect in the meter in question and the complainant in order to harass the O.Ps. has filed the case afresh which is liable to be dismissed with costs.



Thus having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case discussed herein above, we reiterate the view that the O.Ps. made earnest endeavour to attend the allegation of accuracy of the meter in question and ultimately proved through tests of the meter twice as per provision of General Conditions of Supply of WBSEDCL and upon a bipartite discussion with complainant that there was no defect in the meter in question. The O.Ps. also sent regenerated bill dated 17.10.2006 after adjustment of 1st installment but the complainant having been aware of his letter to the O.P. (Exbt. “A”) conveying his satisfaction of meeting with O.P.No.2 and subsequent sitting with the O.Ps. followed by his signature on the resolution dated 30.11.2006 (Exbt. “B”) has filed this present case which cannot be termed as “unbecoming” of a legal practitioner.



In view of the matter it can safely be said that the service of the O.Ps. does not suffer from deficiency and the claim of the complainant does not have any leg to stand on.



Both the points are thus disposed of in the negative.



Proper fees have been paid.



Hence,

O r d e r e d



That Purulia Consumer Complainant No. 15 of 2007 is dismissed on contest with no order as to the costs.



Let a certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of charge.









Member Member President

A.K.Sinha S.Sengupta (Santra) R.N.Sarkar