KUNDAN KUMAR KUMAI

This is an appeal u/s 47 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, preferred against the order dated 18/08/2023, passed by the Ld. DCDRC, Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur, in CC/48/2021.

The Appellants’ case in brief is that, the Appellants, are the owners of the hospital having electric connection with Consumer No.4013019100. On 28/08/2020, when the Appellants requested for an updated electric bill, to the Respondent no.1, who responded by sending a fake bill, amounting to Rs.6,67,370/- (Rupees six lakhs sixty-seven thousand three hundred seventy) only, dated 09/03/2021. The Appellants protested against the said bill on 15/03/2021, against which an assurance was received that a new meter would be installed. On 18/03/2021 a parallel electric meter had been installed and after eight days i.e. on 25/03/2021, the said parallel meter had been dismantled and taken away, informing that the original meter was accurate on 26/03/2021. On 27/03/2021 the Appellants issued a letter stating that the original meter was off for seven days, as the meter reading on 09/03/2021 was the same as 16/03/2021 and on 18/03/2021, after the new installation of the new meter, the reading of the meter jumped to 90387, indicating that in two days a jump off of 851 Units, was shown in the original meter. Again on 21/03/2021, 90677 Units were shown indicating consumption of 290 Units (90677 – 90387). On 18/03/2021 the parallel meter showed 230 Units and on 21/03/2021 showed 325 Units, an increase of 95 Units (325 – 230) in four days. On 25/03/2021 the original meter showed 90584 Units and in the parallel meter showed 522 Units, showing consumption of 197 Units (522 – 325). The consumption in the original on 25/03/2021 was 90584 and on 21/03/2021 it was 90677, showing consumption of 83 Units. On the basis of the above readings, a new meter was applied on 27/03/2021, but the electric office responded by letter dated 01/04/2021 that the bill sent to the Appellants, had to be paid every month. On 02/04/2021, the Appellants again applied to the Respondents, indicating that the hospital was providing public service and also Corona infected patients and therefore to revise the bills sent, otherwise, it would cause loss to the hospital. But the electricity authority came to the hospital on 07/12/2021 to disconnect the electric connection by force. On 08/12/2021, the Appellants requested the electric office to inspect the hospital premises by the departmental authorized Inspector, but on 25/12/2021,`the electrical office personnel came to the hospital to disconnect which was averted by stating that there were patients in ICCU, HDU, NICU and other patients in the hospital. Finding no alternative, the Appellants preferred the complaint before the Ld. DCDRC, Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur, with necessary prayers.

The Respondents contested the claim by filing written version, wherein they denied the claim made by the Appellants and stated that the original meter of the Appellants was in accurate condition and as the Appellants did not pay the electric bills regularly, huge amount had accumulated and there was no question of inflated and whimsical bills. That apart there was no deficiency of service also. It was further prayed that the case be dismissed.

After going through the materials and evidence on record, the Ld. DCDRC, Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur, passed the impugned order, dismissing the case on contest.

Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the Appellants, preferred this instant appeal, on the ground that the Ld. DCDRC, Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur, had erred in law and facts, while passing the impugned order.

Decisions with Reasons

Ld. Advocate for the Appellant, at the time of final hearing, had submitted that direction for installation of new electric meter be also passed, as the original electric meter was in erratic condition. Had the meter been accurate such a huge bill could not have resulted and thus the Respondents were guilty of malpractice, unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. It was further prayed that the appeal be allowed and the impugned order be set aside.

Ld. Advocate for the Respondents, on the other hand, countered that the Appellants were regular defaulters in payment of electricity bills, following which huge amount had accumulated and in order to avoid making payments, they had resorted to the original meter being defective and the same had also been tested by the parallel electric meter and the same had been found to be accurate. Under the circumstance, the question of installing new meter did not arise and the impugned order needed to be upheld.

The only point of dispute is that as to whether the original electric meter was accurate or not. In this respect, one parallel electric meter had been installed and the comparative readings between the old meter and the new parallel meter is reflected in the Annexure P8. From the Annexure P8, it is revealed that the meter reading on 18/03/2021, in the original meter and the parallel meter is 90387 and 325, respectively. On 25/03/2021, the meter reading shown in both the meters is 90584 and 522, respectively. The difference in the original meter on the two dates shows 90584 – 90387 = 197 Units and the difference in the parallel meter readings on the above dates also show as 522 – 325 = 197 Units. Therefore, this meter reading in the above two meters on the dates mentioned therein, clearly proves that the original meter was in accurate condition. The only contention raised by the Ld. Advocate for the Appellants, is that there were different cancelled readings. In this context, it can be stated that not only the cancelled readings were initialed, but the representative of the Appellants/hospital had also put his signature as Subrato Mukherjee and there is nothing to show that the above readings both cancelled and non-cancelled were done without his approval. In fact, there is nothing to show on the above Annexure, that the signature of the representative of the Appellants/hospital had been put under protest. Under the circumstance, the readings reflected in Annexture P8, can be held to be reflection of the accurate readings shown in the original meter as well as the parallel meter. Hence, it can be safely concluded that the original electric meter is accurate and in perfect working condition. Once the original electric meter is found to be in accurate condition, the allegations raised by the Appellants regarding faulty meter readings, need not be considered, as there is no obligation to further prove the original electric meter to be accurate, to satisfy the whims of the Appellants. Under the circumstance, the impugned order passed by the Ld. DCDRC, Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur cannot be found to be at fault. As a result, the instant appeal along with the petition dated 01/05/2024, fails.

It is therefore,

                                                                              ORDERED

That the instant appeal along with the petition dated 01/05/2024, be and the same is dismissed on contest, but without cost.

The impugned order is hereby upheld.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost.

Copy of the order be sent to the Ld. DCDRC, Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur for necessary information.