DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 09 of 2019

 

1. Sri Biswajit Sarkar,

    S/O. Late Sefal Chandra Sarkar,

    Village-Durjoynagar, Pin-799009,

    P.O.-Durjoynagar, P.S.- Airport(Narshinghar),

    Distric- West Tripura. ............Complainant.

 

 

-VERSUS-

 

 

1. Chairman Cum-Managing Director,

    Tripura State Electricity Corporation,

    Bidyut Bhaban, Banamalipur,

    P.O.-Agartala, P.S.-East Agartala,

    District- West Tripura, Pin-799001.

 

2. Senior Manager,

    Durjoynagar Electrical Sub-Division,

    P.O.-Durjoynagar, P.S.-Airport(Narshinghar),

    Dist.-West Tripura, Pin-799009.      ..........Opposite parties.

 

 

 

      __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI BAMDEB MAJUMDER

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

SRI U. DAS

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SMT. DR B. PAL,

 MEMBER, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA

 

C O U N S E L

 

For the Complainant : Sri Sujit Kr. Banerjee,

  Smt. Leena Sarkar,

  Advocates. 

 

For the O.Ps. : Smt. Rajashree Purakayastha,

  Advocate.

 

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:  11.11.2019

 

J U D G M E N T

 

The Complainant Sri Biswajit Sarkar, set the law in motion by presenting the petition U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 complaining deficiency of service committed by the O.Ps. 

  The complainant's case, in brief, is that the Complainant is a consumer of Electricity vide Consumer ID No.000110056723 under the Tripura State Electricity Corporation i.e. the O.Ps. The Complainant has domestic electric connection to his house situated at Durjoynagar, Agartala under the Durjoynagar Electric Sub-Division, West Tripura District. The complainant has alleged in his complaint that his average consumption of electricity unit per month was 40 to 60 unit. But to his surprise he was served with electricity bill for the period from 10/09/2018 to 13/10/2018 for having consumed 1109 units and that an amount  Rs.7,851/- has been levied on him against the impugned bill. Being dissatisfied with the bill amount he made a representation to the Senior Manager, Durjoynagar Electric Sub-Division i.e. O.P. No.2 on 25/10/2018 for correction of the bill. He also urged for verification of the electric meter installed in his house. But the O.P. No.2 did not make any reply to his representation and also has failed to find out the fault in the meter box. Despite filing of the objection against the impugned bill, the O.P. No.2 issued electric bills subsequently wherein consumption of units have been shown either 1 or 0 unit per month. The Complainant further alleged in his complaint that O.P. No.2 without any prior intimation/notice disconnected the domestic electric connection of the Complainant on 19/02/2019. As a result of it, the Complainant and his family members faced inconvenience and suffered both physically and mentally. For want of electric connection the Complainant had to collect and carried water for his family members from far off distance. The complainant and his family members suffered mental agony due to the illegal act committed by the O.Ps. 

The complainant in his complaint prayed for interim direction from the Forum to be given to the O.Ps. for restoring the electric connection to his house for fair ends of justice. 

Being aggrieved by the conduct of the O.Ps., the Complainant has filed present complaint praying for compensation of Rs.50,000/- for suffering mental agony, harassment and for deficiency of service of the O.Ps. apart from litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- against the O.Ps.   

Hence this case. 

Be it mentioned here that on 27/02/2019 at the time of hearing on admission of the complaint, this Forum while admitting the complaint issued interim order directing the O.P. No.2, the Senior Manager, Durjoynagar, Sub-Division, Agartala, West Tripura to restore the electric connection to the residential house of the complainant at Durjoynagar. In compliance with the said order passed by this Forum, the O.P. No.2 has restored the electric connection to the residential house of the complainant on 28/02/2019. 

 

2. Based on the complaint, notices were sent to both the O.Ps.

Both the O.Ps have contested the complainant by filing written objection jointly denying the contentions and the allegations of the complainant. O.Ps have asserted in their written objection that in response to the representation submitted by the complainant dated 25.10.18 the O.P. No.2 along with his staff visited the house of the complainant and verified the electric meter observing all formalities in presence of the complainant and his family members. The O.P. No.2 found the meter O.K. The O.Ps have denied having issued electric bill to the complainant with excessive reading as alleged by the complainant. The O.Ps further stated in their written objection that after conducting the detail verification of the electric meter, the O.P. No.2 informed the complainant that the complainant could seek for further testing of the meter by filing an application and on payment of Rs.40/-. According to the O.Ps neither the complainant sought for further testing of the meter nor did he pay the alleged disputed electric bill and subsequent bill amounts for next 3 months. Regarding disconnection of domestic electric supply, the O.Ps stated in their written objection that prior intimation/notice was duly given to the complainant from the office of the O.P. No.2 and the wife of the complainant had been served with the said notice as to the outstanding dues of the bill amount in the name of the complainant and thereafter disconnected the electricity to the house of the complainant.

Denying any deficiency of service or negligence on the part of the O.Ps , the O.Ps have prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

3. Evidence adduced by the parties:-

The complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and submitted his examination in chief by way of affidavit. The complainant was cross examined by the O.P. side. The complainant has produced 5 documents. The documents were marked as Exhibit- 1 Series. 

 

The O.P. Nos.1 and 2 adduced evidence of one witness namely Sri Sankar Das, Senior Manager, Durjoynagar Electric Sub-Division, TSECL. The said witness has produced 3 documents which were marked as Exhibit- A Series. The witness was cross examined by the complainant side. 

 

4. Points to be determined:-

(i) Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps towards the complainant?

  (ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any compensation /relief as prayed for ?

 

5. Decision and reasons for decision:-  

We have heard arguments advanced by both sides' Advocates. 

We have gone through the complaint, the evidence adduced by the complainant and the documentary evidence produced by the complainant. We have also gone through the written objection filed by the O.Ps, the evidence adduced by their witness and also documentary evidence produced by the said witness.

We find that the complainant is a consumer under the O.Ps and that he has got domestic electric connection to his house situated at Durjoynagar, Agartala under the Durjoynagar electrical Sub-Division, West Tripura, Agartala. There is no dispute regarding disconnection of electric line to the house of the complainant on 19.02.19 by the staff of the O.P. No.2. It was argued by the Learned Counsel for the O.Ps that the disconnection was done as the complainant had outstanding electric bill amount and that due notice was served upon the wife of the complainant prior to the  disconnection was effected. Learned Counsel appearing for the complainant on the other hand has disputed about the correctness of the amount in the electric bill for the period from 10.09.18 to 13.10.18 and also about service of notice before effecting the disconnection of electric supply to the house of the complainant. Learned Counsel further contended that the complainant had been served with an exorbitant bill amount of Rs.7,851/- for the period from 10.09.18 to 13.10.18 for having had consumed 1109 units of electricity, whereas the average consumption of electricity per month of the complainant for last few years have been 40 to 60 units prior to the issuance of the impugned bill for the period from 10.09.18 to 13.10.18.  Learned Counsel also argued that no notice was issued to the complainant or to his family members prior to the disconnection of the electric line. Learned Counsel further argued that consequent upon the representation/ objection dated 25.10.18 filed by the complainant to the O.P. No.2, the electric meter was verified /inspected by the O.P. No.2 after visiting the house of the complainant. The O.P. No.2 did not find any fault in the meter. The complainant on the other hand received 3 nos. of electric bills subsequently wherein consumption of electricity as per the bills have been shown either 1 or 0 unit per month. So Learned Counsel for the complainant argued that the defects in the electric meter of the complainant is evident. He thus, urged for allowing the complaint. 

 

We have considered the arguments placed by both sides. We find that the contention of the complainant that prior to the issuance of the disputed bill for the period from 10.09.18 to 13.10.18 the complainant used to get electricity bills having consumption of average electricity of 40 to 60 unit per month has not been denied/disputed by the O.Ps in their written objection. The O.Ps have failed to satisfy us regarding sudden rise in consumption of  1109 units of electricity by the complainant for the period from 10.09.18 to 13.10.18 and thereafter subsequent 3 nos. of electric bills wherein consumption of units have been shown either 1 or 0 unit per month which are in very lower side. So, we are of the opinion that the electric meter which has been installed in the house of the complainant can not be considered to be defectless/flawless. 

Regarding the service of notice upon the wife of the complainant before the disconnection of electricity was effected in the house of the complainant, the O.Ps have failed to produce copy of the notice before the Forum to substantiate such assertion. They have however, produced 2 sheets of paper showing list of names of consumers, their addresses, consumer ID numbers, total amounts due against each of the listed consumer, number of unpaid bills and signatures of customers wherein the wife of the complainant has been shown as one of the signatories. On careful perusal of the above 2 sheets of paper we find there is nothing mentioned in  the papers about the proposed action of the O.Ps to disconnect electric lines of the listed consumers. More over, the 2 sheets of paper do not bear any signature/authentication by any person who had initiated the papers. Hence, we are of the opinion that no notice was issued either to the complainant or to his family members before the electric line was disconnected from the house of the complainant. We are satisfied that due to such deficiency of service of the O.Ps the complainant and his family members suffered much for about 9 days with effect from 19.02.19 to 28.02.19 for want of electricity which is essential & basic of a consumer. The electric connection was however restored by order of this Forum on 28.02.19 as per order of the Forum dated 27.02.19. 

In view of discussion made above, we find and hold that the complainant has succeeded in establishing his consumer complaint U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. We accordingly find the O.P. No.1 and 2 guilty of committing deficiency of service  towards the complainant. We also find that the complainant is entitled to get compensation for the deficiency of service committed by the O.Ps.  

The issues which were framed in this case are answered accordingly.

 

6. In the result, it is hereby directed  that until a new electric meter has been installed in the house of the complainant the O.P. Nos.1 and 2 shall draw up fresh electric bills for the period from 10.09.19 to 13.10.19 and the subsequent period thereafter  having regard to the average consumption of electricity of 40 to 60 unit per month after canceling the impugned bill and subsequent 3 nos. of bills which were issued thereafter. The O.Ps shall also arrange for furnishing the bills to the complainant within one month from receipt of the copy of this judgment. At the same time, it is also directed that the complainant shall have to pay bill amount to the O.P. No.2 within 10 days after receipt of the fresh bills. 

For causing harassment and mental agony both the O.Ps shall pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation to the complainant and Rs.3,000/- as cost of litigation. The O.P. No.1 and 2 shall pay the aforesaid amount of Rs.18,000/-(Rs.15,000/- + Rs.3,000/-) in total to the complainant within a period of 2(two) months from the date of judgment failing which the amount shall carry interest @ 9% P.A. till the payment is made in full. 

 

ANNOUNCED

 

 

SRI BAMDEB MAJUMDER

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

 

 

SRI U. DAS

MEMBER,

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

 WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

SMT. DR  B. PAL,

 MEMBER, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA