DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MALDA, MALDA D.F.ORIGINAL CASE NO.65/2007 Date of filing of the Case: 10.12.2007 Complainant | Opposite Parties | Nazma Khatun, Husband- Bapi Chowdhury Vill. Hyderpur (Piazee More) P.S. Enlishbazar, Dist.- Malda | 1. | Chairman, Of West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd., Bidyut Bhawan, Salt Lake, Kolkata-700091. | 2. | Divisional Engineer, (O.M.M.) Malda Division, W.B.S.E.D.C.L. Rabindra Avenue, P.S.- English Bazar, P.O. & Distt. – Malda | 3. | Station Manager Rathbari, GR E/S, WBSEDCL, Malda P.S. English Bazar, P.O. & Dist. Malda |
Present: | 1. | Shri A.K. Sinha, Member. | 2. | Smt. Sumana Das, Member | | |
For the Petitioner : Prashanta Kundu, Advocate For the O.P.s : Salil Kr. Das, Advocate Order No. 20 Dt. 26.08.2008 The petitioner’s case in a narrow compass is that she is a consumer of WBSEB under Rathbari Sector. She alleged that she submitted petition to the Station Manager Rathbari Sector to replace the existing meter on 4.03.2005 and on 29.06.2007 she received a bill of abnormal amount. She also submitted petitions on 15.05.2007 and 10.08.2007 and lastly on 11.09.2007 against such abnormal bill but the O.P. had turn a deep ear to her objections and also did not change the existing meter. She has been mentally very much depressed for the inaction of the electricity department and for which she has filed this case for the reliefs as has been made out in her petition of complaint. All the 3 O.Ps. have filed joint written version denying the material allegations. It has been submitted that the meter of the petitioner was stopped from 11.03.2005 to 02.11.2006 and the same was replaced on 02.11.2006. The O.Ps. have further stated that on receipt of complaint on 10.08.2007 an arrangement was made for checking of the alleged meter by installation of one new meter in series with the existing meter in presence of one Bapi Chowdhury & Swarup Chowdhury, signatures of both were also taken and no discrepancy could be noticed. Hence the allegation of the petitioner is baseless and she is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for. On pleading of both parties the following points are taken up for effective disposal of the case. 1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps.? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for? :DECISION WITH REASONS: Point No.1 & 2: Both the points are taken together for discussion as they are interrelated. The petitioner has examined herself as P.W. – 1 and has stated that she is an employee of ICDS with monthly remuneration of Rs.1030/- who used to run one fan, one tube light and a TV set with the help of her electric connection. Her meter was found defective and she informed the O.P. by issuing letters on 4.03.2005, 11.05.2007, 21.06.2007, 07.08.2007 and 11.09.2007 as alleged for excessive billing in compared to actual consumption. She has filed the copies of such letters duly received by the O.P. with official seal & signatures marked Exbt.1 series. She also stated that the meter was stopped from 11.03.2003 to 2.11.2006 and a new meter was intalled on 2.11.2006. She has also filed 3 receipts to payment of bills dated 4.3.2005, 31.10.2005 & 26.12.2005 marked Exbt. – 2 series and also stated that meter reader did not visit her premises during that period. In the cross examination she admitted that new meter was replaced and installation of parallel meter was also done by O.P. which was removed after fifteen days. She complaints of excessive billing during the period for 11.03.2005 to January 2007 and admitted that she did not make payment of bills of Sept 2007 to January 2008. She admitted that Bapi Chowdhury and Swarup Chowdhury are her husband and son respectively. The O.Ps. have not adduced any evidence in this case excepting filing of originals of Blue Card against Service connection No.RS/8381/D with reading dated 15.06.2003 to 10.10.2007, original prayers of petitioner dated 07.08.2007 for excessive billing with endorsement to issue one meter for checking and a bill dated 03.08.2007 for bill month of August 2007 to Oct. 2007 reverse of which reflects the notes of installation of new meter series with old one on 22.10.2007 and removal dated 31.10.2007 showing identical reading units. Signatures of two witnesses including Bapi Chwodhury on 31.10.207 and signature of Swarup Chowdhury on 22.10.2007. Perused the written arguments advanced by the petitioner. it has been urged that the meter was admittedly stopped for 11.03.2005 to 2.11.2006 and there is no provision or ruling for demanding average electric charges and the O.Ps. are liable for deficiency of services. Ld. advocate for the petitioner has cited a ruling in a case, states of Goa VS Simplice Mazavedo 1991 2 PR 268 (269) (Goa). Ld. advocate for the petitioner also submits that bill amount of Rs.2699/- during the period the meter was found defective i.e. 11.30.2005 to 2.11.2006 be adjusted in the next bills. The submission of Ld. advocate for the petitioner is found contradictory on question that “there is no provision or ruling for demanding average electric charges” as it appears from his written argument at the same time the Ld. advocate has filed the reference of the case Dr. Subharaman VS Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board 1992 (2) CPJ 42(TN) wherein it has been stated that “ where, meter got struck up and was replaced but bills issued on average basis for disputed period it was held that there was no illegality.” It is not understood as to why the petitioner has claimed the return of Rs.2699/- payments of which were made against receipt No.10029 dated 4.03.2005 (Exbt. 2 series) receipt No.7703 dated 31.10.2005 (Exbt. 2 (a) ) and 37722 dated 26.12.2005 (Exbt. 2(b) ) as the meter was found defective from 11.03.2005 to 2.11.2006. On scrutiny of the bills it appears that the O.Ps. have claimed the total amount of Rs.2699/- against the bill period 01/2005 to 03/2005, 08/2005 to 10/2005 and 11/2005 to 01/2006. The Forum thinks it prudent that the petitioner should get average bills during the entire period the meter got struck up i.e. from 11.03.2005 to 2.11.2006. It further appears from Ext.1 to 1(C) that the petitioner has prayed for taking necessary actions against raising of excessive rent than her actual consumption which she first reported on 11.05.2007 (Ext.1(c) ). Admittedly, a new meter was replaced on 2.11.2006 and check meter was provided by the O.Ps. on 22.10.2007 in presence of Swarup Chowdhury, the son of the petitioner and the same was removed on 31.10.2007 in presence of Bapi Chowdhury the husband of the petitioner and another. The readings of two meters were found identical and showed consumption of 15 units during the above period. The evidence of such fact was put black and white under signatures of both husband & son of the petitioner. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination it cannot be said that the existing meter which was installed on 2.11.2006 in the premises of the petitioner is defective and therefore the claim of the petitioner for excessive billing during the period referred to hereinabove is not justified. In view of the above facts and circumstances this Forum finds opportunity to take the assistance of the direction of W.B. Electricity Regulatory Commission (ESC) Regulation 2004 wherein it is led down that “if the license found that the bill is erroneous, revised corrected bill should have been furnished to the present petitioner. Be it mentioned herein that at once it come to the notice of the meter reader on 11.03.2005 that the meter was found ‘stop’ he could have brought it to the notice of the authority and the meter could have replaced immediately thereafter, but no explanation appears nor any scrap of papers on the part of the O.Ps. could be produced to show what prevented them from changing the meter till 2.11.2006. Therefore, the service of the O.Ps. suffers from deficiency. Both these points are thus disposed of in the affirmative in part. The O.Ps. should prepare revised corrected bills during the period from 11.3.2005 to 2.11.2006 and the bills paid by the petitioner during the above period be adjusted to the next bill if found there was excess payment. The petitioner shall have to pay the charges for consumption of units from September 2007 to upto date as per reading of the existing meter. Hence, ordered, that Malda D.F. Case No.65/2007 is allowed in part on contest against the O.Ps. (Chairman, Of West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd., Bidyut Bhawan, Salt Lake, Kolkata-700091 and Divisional Engineer, (O.M.M.), Malda Division, W.B.S.E.D.C.L. Rabindra Avenue, P.S.- English Bazar, P.O. & Dist. – Malda and Station Manager, Rathbari, GR E/S, WBSEDCL, Malda, P.S. English Bazar, P.O. & Dist. Malda). The O.Ps. do hand over revised corrected bill on average basis during the period from 11. 03.2005 to 2.11.2006 and make necessary adjustment of the amounts paid in the next bills if found excessive within30 days from date. The petitioner do pay charges for her electric consumption from September 2007 to January 2008 within 30 days from date and also do pay the charges from February 2008 to onwards as per bills received by her from the O.Ps. as usual course. There will no order as to cost under the peculiar circumstances. Let a copy of order sheet be given both parties free of cost at once. Sd/- Sd/- Sumana Das A.K. Sinha Member Member D.C.D.R.F., Malda D.C.D.R.F., Malda | 
