DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR,
KOLKATA-700 0144
C.C. CASE NO. __168_ _ OF ___2017
DATE OF FILING : 28.12.2017 DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT:12 .2.2019
Present : President : Ananta Kumar Kapri
Member(s) : Subrata Sarker
COMPLAINANT : Sri Sukumar Mondal, son of late Amullya Mondal , Vill. Sahajadapur, P.O Nimpith R.K Ashram, P.S Jaynagar, Dist. South 24-Parganas, Pin-743337.
O.P/O.Ps : 1. Assistant Engineer & Station Manager, WBSEDCL, Jaynagar Group of Electric Supply Comp Ltd. Vill. Mazilpur, P.O Jaynagar Mazilpur, P.S Jaynagar.
2. Divisional Engineer, WBSEDCL, Vill. Padmapukur, P.O & P.S Baruipur.
3. Chairman, WBSECDCL, Bidyut Bhaban, Karunamoye, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700 091.
__________________________________________________________________
J U D G M E N T
Sri Ananta kapri, Preident
Three bills dated 17.5.2016, 16.8.2016 and 16.11.2016 raised by the Assistant Engineer & Station Manager, WBSEDCL, (O.P-1) , which are alleged to be inflated ones by the complainant have caused eye-sore to the complainant for the removal of which and for amelioration of which the complainant has filed the instant case under section 12, C.P Act, 1986.
The facts leading to the filing of the instant case may be reproduced in its narrow compass as follows.
Complainant is a domestic consumer of the O.Ps i.e WBSEDCL . Since the grant of electric li.0ne to his house on 7.22003, he has been making regular payment of electricity bills as and when given to him by the O.Ps Department. On 29.9.2012, his meter was seen to be defective by the meter reader and this fact was conveyed to the complainant by the meter reader of the O.P Department. Accordingly, the complainant submitted a complaint before the O.Ps , praying for replacement of the said meter by a new one. Average bill was raised by the O.Ps for the period from 15.5.2014 to 15.2.2016 and these bills have also been paid by the complainant. The old meter has not been replaced by the O.Ps.
Still, the O.Ps have sent three inflated bills i.e bill dated 17.5.2016 for Rs.11,333/-, bill dated 16.8.2016 for Rs.12,294/- and bill dated 16.11.2016 for Rs.13,021/-. The complainant did not pay the bills and, therefore, the electric line of him was disconnected by the O.Ps. The electric line having been disconnected, the complainant has come up before the Forum with the instant case, praying for issuing an order directing the O.Ps to reconnect the electric line of him and also to remove the old defective meter along with payment of compensation etc. for mental agony and harassment of the complainant and his family. Hence, this case.
O.P department has been contesting the case by filing written statement ,wherein it is contended inter alia that the meter was reported to be defective by the meter reader and ,therefore, average/estimated bills were generated during the period from 15.5.2014 to 15.2.2016 . On 7.5.2016 it was found that the meter was running correctly and spot bill was generated with 1424 units of Rs.11,327/- and said spot bill was handed over to the complainant. The bills raised between 15.5.2014 and 15.2.2016 were average bills and, therefore, revised bills dated 17.5.2016, 16.8.2016 and 16.11.2016 have been raised for the period from 15.5.2014 to 15.2.2016. Those bills are not at all inflated bills. The electric line of the complainant has been disconnected due to non-payment of those bills. There is no deficiency in service on their part and the complaint should, therefore, be dismissed in limini with cost.
Upon the averments of the parties, the following points are formulated for consideration.
POINT FOR DETERMINATION
- Are the O.Ps guilty of deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant ?
- Is the complainant entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for ?
EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES
Evidence on affidavit is led by both the complainant. The written version filed by the O.P is treated as their evidence vide their petition dated 17.5.2018.
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point no.1 & 2 :
The first grievance of the complainant is that electric meter of his house has gone defective and that defective meter has not been replaced by a new one by O.P-1, although the fact remains that he has complained for such new meter several times before the office of O.P-1. The version of the O.P is that they took step for review of the said meter and came to see that the meter was not defective and that it was recording the consumption correctly. To prove it, one report of the technical staff of the O.P department has been filed on record and the said report is marked as Annexure A to the written version of the O.P. From this report, it stands established that an inspection was conducted to check the meter of the complainant’s house on 10.7.2016 and the said meter was found in healthy condition. No abnormality whatsoever was found in the functioning of the said meter. In the circumstances, we could very well hold that the meter of the complainant was never defective and it has been all along functioning in right manner. The noting “Stopped “in the yellow card against the date 26.11.2016 by a meter reader of the O.P department appears to be unfounded and ,therefore, such a noting seems to have borne no value at all.
Be that as it may, the regulation requires that average bill is to be raised by the electric department for the period during which the meter remains defective. That the meter is not defective was discovered only on 7.5.2016. Prior to that, the meter was presumed to be defective and ,therefore, average bill was raised by the O.P department for the period from 15.2.2014 to 15.22016. During this period, 3 average bills were raised by the O.P department and all those bills have also been paid by the complainant as stated by the complainant in the petition of complaint, which is not denied by the O.P. But the trouble has cropped up only when three revised bills – one dated 16.5.2016 for Rs.11,333/-, another dated 16.8.2016 for Rs.12,294/- and third dated 16.11.2016 for Rs.13,021/- have been given to the complainant by the O.P department and when the electric line of the complainant has been disconnected for nonpayment of those bills. These three bills are now subject to fire of criticism by the complainant in this case and it is to be seen whether these three bills have been raised properly in accordance with the regulations of the Electric Department.
Those three bills have not been placed on record by the O.Ps Department and, therefore, we have no scope to see whether those bills have been properly raised or not. That apart, upon an apparent verification it is found that those three bills are not properly raised. A copy of yellow card is placed on record by the complainant. The complainant has also placed on record a list of electric consumption and the payment made for those consumptions. A perusal of that list reveals that for the period from 21.1.2012 to 15.2.2014 the maximum bill amount of the complainant was Rs.592/- per quarter. The revised bills i.e the disputed three bills have demanded more than Rs.11,333/- per quarter. Such demand of the amount as raised in the three disputed bills appear to be much more higher than the usual quarterly consumption of the complainant during a preceding period of two years i.e from 21.1.2012 to 15.2.2016. So, from this point of view also, the three disputed bills appear to be too high to be sustainable. It is stated by the O.P department vide written version of them, that revised bill has been raised on the basis of meter reading taken on 7.5.2016. On 7.5.2016, the meter reading was “4469”and spot bill was generated with 1424 units of Rs.11427/- as averred by the O.P department. From the copy of the yellow card, it is found that meter reading on 7.5.2016 was 4469 and that on 3.8.2016 was 4679. So, it is found that the quarterly consumption is 210 units only and it cannot be more than that at any cost. But, it is averred by the O.P that the consumption was 1424 units and spot bill was generated for Rs.11327/- . Such averment as transpiring in para 5(IV) of the written statement is not supported by the meter card /yellow card.
Regards being had to all these, we do say that the three disputed bills dated 17.5.2016, 16.8.2016 and 16.11.2016 are raised arbitrarily by the O.P department and, therefore, the O.P department cannot recover those amounts of these bills from the complainant. The electric line has already been connected with the house of the complainant by virtue of an interim order of this Forum.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that no award of compensation should be passed in favour of the complainant.
In the result, the case succeeds .
Hence,
ORDERED
That the complaint case be and the same is decreed on contest against the O.Ps with a cost of Rs.5,000/- .
The three disputed electric bills i.e bill dated 17.5.2016 for Rs.11,333/-, another bill dated 16.8.2016 for Rs.12,294/- and third bill dated 16.11.2016 for Rs.13,021/- are hereby cancelled and the O.P department will not be able to recover the amounts of those bills from the complainant, inasmuch as those bills appear to be inflated . At the same time, the O.Ps are given liberty to raise revised bill for the period from 15.5.2014 to 15.2.2016 giving strict adherence to the circular of the electric department and to supply the same to the complainant after having adjusted the payment already made by the complainant against those three bills. The complainant will make payment of the same bills whenever these are supplied to him by the O.P department.
At the same time, the O.P department is restrained from disconnecting the electric line of the complainant before the supply of revised bills as referred to above and the payment thereof within the schedule time.
Let a free plain copy of this order be given to the parties concerned at once.
President
I / We agree
Member
Dictated and corrected by me
President
The judgment in separate sheet is ready and is delivered in open Forum. As it is ,
