District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum
Dakshin Dinajpur, W. Bengal
(Old Sub-Jail Municipal Market Complex, 2nd Floor, Balurghat Dakshin Dinajpur Pin - 733101)
Telefax: (03522)-270013
Present
Sri B. Niyogi - President
Sri S. K. Ghosh - Member
Miss. Swapna Saha - Member
Consumer Complaint No. 32/2010
Pratima Roy.
W/o Kumaresh Roy,
Vill.: Kumarganj, P.O & P.S.: Kumarganj,
Dist. Dakshin Dinajpur.……………………………Complainant
V-E-R-S-U-S
1. The S.S.
Kumarganj Gr. Electric Supply.
P.O. Mahipur, Kumarganj, P.O. & P.S. Kumarganj.
Dist Dakshin Dinajpur.
2. The Assitant Engineer.
West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd.
P.O. Balurghat, Dist-Dakshin Dinajpur.
3. The District Engineer,
West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd.
Balurghat, Dakshin Dinajpur. …………………Opposite Parties
For complainant ……- Sri Kumaresh Roy,
Authorised Representative.
For OP - Sri Sudip Chatterjee, Ld. Adv.
Date of Filing : 06.07.2010
Date of Disposal : 09.03.2011
Judgment & Order dt. 09.03.2011
Instant CC case bases upon a complaint u/s 12 C.P. Act, brought by the complainant Smt. Pratima Roy on 06.07.2010 against the Station Superintendent, Kumarganj Group Electric Supply alleging deficiency in service.
Complainant’s case as made out in her said complaint, in brief, is that she was a consumer of electricity under the OP having Consumer No.:B053500, Service Connection No.:7647/C. She applied for effecting the disconnection of her said connection. In response to the notice issued from the OP, payment of an amount of Rs.20/- was made by her on 17.9.07 for the purpose. The said disconnection was effected on 20.9.07. At that time the final reading in the meter stood at 00202. Still the OP issued a bill dt. 21.9.07 showing that the present reading stood at 00237. Such bill was, however, paid by her.
Thereafter she was served with two bills - one dt. 22.1.08 and the other dt. 23.2.08. While she inquired over such two bills, she was told from the office of the OP that she would not get back her security money unless the payment respecting the said two bills are made.
During her attempt to make payment respecting the said two bills after the expiry of the ‘due date’ she was told that she would have to make payment of a further amount of Rs.50/- by way of penalty.
The complainant then approached to the office of the Divisional Engineer. They, having gone through the papers shown by her, asked her to approach to the Sub. Station for sending of the matter to the Divisional Office.
On 5.8.09 the complainant submitted an application for cancellation of the said two bills. It was represented from the office that she would get back the security deposit soon. But such security deposit is yet to be paid back . In such premises, the complainant brought the complaint for obtaining the back security deposit and compensation.
The proceeding has been contested by the sole OP on whose behalf a written version was presented on 23.12.10 disputing the material averments of the complaint and contending that as per request of the complainant disconnection of supply line was effected on 20.9.10 after the complainant’s making payment of the disconnection charges. After the supply line had been disconnected bills were sent as per consumption shown in the meter. Thereafter the complainant prayed for refund of her security amount. From the side of the OP, she was advised to make payment of the unpaid bills and was told that the security amount could be paid back after the payment of the said dues. As the dues were not paid by the complainant by the due date, demand for fine was laid. As dues ultimately remained unpaid, portion of security amount was adjusted against the dues and now the complainant can get only the remnant portion of the security deposit. There was, in fact, no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
Upon the pleadings of the sides following points come up for determination :-
POINTS
Was there deficiency in service on the part of OP?
Should the reliefs sought for in the complaint be granted ?
Decision with reasons
The averments made in her complaint appears to have been authenticated by the complainant by subscribing her signature thereon. The complainant also, in support of her case, brought on record a number of documents as Exts. 1 to 12 which include copies of a number of applications submitted by her before the OP, that of the quotation issued from the OP in respect of the disconnection charge , those of a number of payment receipts including receipt of payment disconnection charge, copies of the bills dt. 22.1.08 and 23.2.08 issued from the OP.
The averments made in the written version of the OP have been supported by the verification by the OP himself.
No other evidence was adduced in the case though opportunity was given from the end of the Forum.
Let us now enter into the determination on the two points formulated above.
Point No.1:
In course of hearing bold contention advanced by the representative of the complainant was that as disconnection was effected on 20.9.07 the OP could not raise bill respecting the consumption period 10/07 to 12/07 or respecting any subsequent period but they raised their bills dt. 22.1.08 and 23.2.08 in respect of such subsequent periods and so such two bills were not realizable from the complainant. For this, it was further urged, raising of the said two bills as also withholding of refund of the security deposit by the OP amounts to deficiency in service.
Contention advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the OP, on the other hand, was that in this case the complainant could not submit any documents to show that the disconnection was, in fact, effected on 20.9.07 and so the complainant was under an obligation to pay the said bills for the CP 10-12/07 or the other bills issued subsequently. It was further urged by him that the OP was under no obligation to effect disconnection within certain time-span and so the two bill raised on the basis of readings of the meter were realisable from the complainant.
We have taken into consideration the said submissions advanced on behalf of the two sides and have gone through the material on record.
We are unable to accept the contention advanced from the side of the OP that the OP was under no obligation to effect disconnection within a certain time span as Regulation 4.4 of the WBERC (ESC) Regulations, 2007 specifically enjoined that a licensee should disconnect the supply of energy to a consumer in the event of such consumer’s making such request in writing, within two working days of making of written request.
Here it has been claimed by the complainant in her POC that the disconnection was actually effected on 20.9.2007. The OP in his written version claimed that after the payment of disconnection charges the OP effected disconnection on 20.9.10. The complainant did not file any document to show that the disconnection of supply was actually made on 20.9.07. From the side of the OP also no document has been filed in support of the claim that disconnection was effected on 20.9.10.
However, it here remains admitted that disconnection was effected on prayer made by complainant. The complainant did not file any copy of his application seeking disconnection but the copy of the quotation issued from the OP brought on record as Ext.2 purports that the OP issued a quotation in respect of disconnection charges concerning the SC on 17.9.07. So it may be presumed that the prayer for disconnection was made on 17.9.07 or earlier. Ext.1 purports that the said disconnection charge was paid by the complainant on 17.9.07 i.e. on the date of issuance of the quotation. So as per Regulation 4.4 of the WBERC (ESC) Regulations, 2007 disconnection was to be effected at least within two working days from 17.9.07.
Though the OP in his written version claimed that the disconnection was effected on 20.9.10, we have already said that no document has been filed by the OP in support of such case. The OP can reasonably be expected to be in possession of Disconnection Memo or other document to show the date on which disconnection was effected. Further, had the disconnection been effected in September, 2010 it can reasonably be expected that they would raise bills respecting the different billing cycles of the year 2009, 2010 too. But it has not been claimed that they did so. That apart, copies of complainant’s different applications date 31.12.07, 19.2.08, 5.10.09, 8.1.10 addressed to the OP brought on record by the complainant as Exts. 3,5,6 & 9 purport that under those applications complainant virtually prayed for getting back the security deposit basing upon the assertion that the disconnection had been effected on 20.9.07. Impression of endorsement as to the receiving of the said applications at the end of the payee also go to indicate that the those applications were received by the OP on the respective dates of making of the application. Here there has been neither any evidence nor any assertion that after receipt of any of those application the OP ever claimed that the supply line had not been disconnected on 20.9.07 or stated that the prayer for refund could not be entertained as the disconnection had not been effected.
From a consideration of the attendant circumstances in general and in particular, issuance of the quotation for disconnection charges on 17.9.07 (as is evidenced by Ext.2), we find the complainant’s case of effecting disconnection on 20.9.07 preponderates and thus accept the complainant’s claim that the disconnection was effected on 20.9.07.
As the supply line was disconnected on 20.9.07 the question of realising payment of electricity charges respecting the CP 10/07 to 12/07 or concerning any subsequent consumption period from the complainant could not arise.
However, in Ext. 11 – copy of the bill in respect of CP 7-9/07 the ‘present reading date’ has been shown as 11.9.07 indicating thereby that under that bill for the CP 7-9/07 electricity charges for consumption recorded till 11.9.07 only of the consumption month of September, 2007 was claimed and so before obtaining refund of security deposit the complainant was liable to pay energy charges for the quantum of consumption that took place after the taking of the reading of the meter on 11.9.07 till effecting of disconnection on 20.9.07 i.e. over the period of 10 days and not the entire of the dues claimed under the two bills dt. 22.1.08 and 23.2.08 (Exts. 7 & 8).
Ext. 6 copy of the complainant’s application dt. 5.8.09 addressed to the OP purports that by such application complainant not only prayed for early payment of security deposit but made prayer for cancellation of the two bills dt. 22.1.08 and 23.2.08. Such Ext.6 purports that the said application was received at the office of the OP on 5.8.09. Under the said two bills 22.1.08 and 23.2.08 (Exts. 7 & 8) OP demanded payment not only for consumption of electricity but other charges too like meter rent, fixed minimum charges etc. respecting different months subsequent to the month of disconnection. Thus though the OP was entitled to claim electricity charges for consumption during the period in between 11.9.07 to 20.0.07 entire of the dues claimed under the said two bills were not realizable from the complainant in view of effecting of disconnection on 20.9.07. The OP does not appear to have rectified the said two bills dt. 22.1.08 and 23.2.08 but insisted on complainant’s making payment of the entire of the said two bills despite complainant’s making of the said application dt.5.8.09 and a number of other applications of various dates as is evidenced by Extx. 3,6 & 9 etc. Ultimately they claimed to have got the amount of the said two bills adjusted against the security deposit. This amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Point No.1 is thus answered in the affirmative.
Point No.2:
In the POC the complainant has prayed for obtaining back her security deposit and compensation. In course of our discussion on Point No. 1 we have observed that the OP could realize only energy charge for the consumption of electricity consumed after the taking of the reading of the meter on 11.9.07 till effecting of disconnection on 20.9.07. The complainant in her POC claimed that at the time of disconnection reading of the meter was 202 units but no document appears to have been filed to show that the final reading actually stood at such 202 units. Rather, she claimed to have paid the bill dt. 21.9.07 (Ext. 11) wherein present reading was shown as 237. In such a situation, we are not in a position to accept that the reading of the meter at the time of disconnection was only 202 units.
In the bill for the CP 10-12/07 brought on record as Ext.7 it has virtually been claimed that during the period from 11.9.07 to 20.12.07 advance in meter reading was 23 units. However, we have already rejected the OP’s case that disconnection was made on 20.9.10 and have accepted the complainant’s case that disconnection was actually effected on 20.9.07. From a consideration of the circumstances, in particular the absence of production of any document from the side of the OP as to what the advance in meter reading was during the ten days period from 11.9.07 till effecting of disconnection on 20.9.07 and the fact that interval in taking readings of the meter was not in consonance with the Regulation 3.1.3 of the WBERC (ESC) Regulations, 2007 (as is apparent from Ext.7) and further that the prayer for refund of security deposit has remained pending for a long time, we deem it proper to ignore realization of the energy charges consumed during the said period in between 11.9.07 to 20.9.07.
It has virtually been the case of OP that they have got the amounts concerning the bills dt. 22.1.08 and 23.2.08 adjusted against the security deposit of the complainant and that the complainant is only entitled to get the remnant amount of the security deposit. However, we have already observed stating reasons that the OP was entitled to get only the charges respecting the consumption of electricity during 10 days period in between 11.9.07 and 20.9.07 and not the entire of the said two bills. We have also observed stating reasons that realization of the said charges for consumption in between 11.9.07 and 20.9.07 needs be ignored. So the complainant is entitled to get back the security deposit amount in its entirety.
From a consideration of the circumstances, we thus hold that the OP should be directed to pay to the complainant the entire of the security deposit made by her for obtaining the service connection, by way of refund of such deposit in view of permanent disconnection of her service connection treating that the bills dt. 22.1.08 and 23.2.08 were inoperative.
Having kept in view attendant circumstances, we, however, do not think it expedient to grant the prayer for compensation. Point No. 2 is thus answered.
In the result the complaint succeeds.
The date of completion of service of notice is not apparent from the case record. However, the OP entered appearance in the case on 25.8.10 which was the date mentioned in the notice for appearance. Instant case is thus getting disposed of about 6½ months after the appearance of the OP in the case. This is, as it appears from the case record, mainly in view of a number of adjournments sought for either from the side of the OP for presentation of written version or from the side of the complainant for effecting amendment of the complaint.
Under such circumstances, it is.
O R D E R E D
That the complaint u/s 12 CP Act, brought by the complainant Smt. Pratima Roy on 6.7.2010 is allowed on contest.
The OP–Station Superintendent, Kumarganj Group Electric Supply shall pay to the complainant the entire of the security deposit paid by her earlier for obtaining the SC No.7647-C by way of refund of such deposit in view of effecting of permanent disconnection treating that the bills dt. 22.1.08 and 23.2.08 concerning such connection were inoperative.
The OP shall make the payment aforesaid within the period of 30 days from the service of copies of this award upon him.
Let plain copies of this order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost.
Dictated & corrected
(B. Niyogi)
President
We concur
(Swapna Saha)
Member
(S.K. Ghosh)
Member
