W B S E B Vs. ROOPLAL MONDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of Malda D.C.D.R.F. Case No. 40 of 1999 where "the petitioners case is that he consumed electrical energy under service connection No. 2139/1 for running his business in flour and husking mill. He paid electric bills regularly for consumption of his electricity. On 30.10.1992 the meter supplied to him by the O.Ps. got damaged by fire when he approached the O.Ps. for a new meter. As per direction of the O.Ps. the complainant deposited Rs. 339 and Rs. 58 on 2.11.1992 for which he obtained receipt Nos. 067688-89. He was assured by the O.Ps. for supply of a new meter at an early date. Meanwhile he continued to pay electrical charges on average amount of bill. For this purpose the O.Ps. used to charge per month for consumption of 600 units of electrical energy". "Due to competition from other business the volume of business of the complainant decreased. Yet the O.Ps. did not replace the damaged meter by a good condition meter for the purpose of consumption of the petitioner. This is certainly a deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps. Therefore, the petitioner has prayed an order from the Forum for installation of a new meter immediately to the petitioners place of business. So that he has to pay electrical bills only for the units actually consumed by him".

(2.) The O.P. W.B.S.E.B. "contested the case by filing a written objection. Therein they denied all the material contention made by the petitioner, and, inter alia, contended that the service line of the petitioner was installed on 10.3.1992. For six months the consumer consumed electricity on meter reading. This is from 10.3.1992 to 27.8.1992. Thereafter the consumer wanted to consume electricity on payment of average bill. Actually from 1993 and up to date the petitioner have been paying the price of 600 units per month as average monthly bill as per standing circular of the W.B.S.E.B. So the petitioner has gained at the rate of 100 units per month from 30.9.1992 to 29.12.1999. The petitioner has been running the mill eight hours per day. The petitioner never applied for replacement of meter till now. If he wants replacement of the meter he will have to deposit Rs. 6,000 as per circular of the O.P. company. The petitioner cannot get any relief for the period which is time-barred. From 3/99 to 2/2000 the petitioner has some outstanding dues. He is consuming electricity without making any payment. So his prayer before the Forum should be dismissed with cost."

(3.) After hearing both the parties learned Forum below order, that the petitioner under Sec. 12 filed by Rooplal Mandal is allowed on contest with cost and the Forum directs the parties as follows: