Ld. Advocate for the parties are present. Judgement is ready and pronounced in open Commission.

BY -    SRI ASISH DEB, PRESIDENT

Brief facts of the complainant’s case is that the complainant is a permanent resident of the above noted address and a poor bonafide consumer of service under the O.P.  There is a STV connection in the name of the complainant being consumer ID No.-222075311. The O.P. No.-1 is the Distributor of electricity at Kolaghat Customer Care, Kolaghat, Purba Medinipur. The complainant  found that the meter was  defective. He lodged complain to the authority on 14.03.2017 for the repair or replacement of the said meter, but till now the authority concern has not replaced the said meter or checked the meter after several request. He paid electric bill regularly. He cleared all the dues of Rs. 1,88916/- in three installments. As per receipt No. 6751726 for Jan-2017, Rs. 62972/- paid on 27.12.2018.As per receipt No. 8595606 for March -2017 Rs. 62972/- paid on 24.01.2018. The OP further issued a bill of Rs. 129477/- as per order dated 18.03.2017. According to complainant this amount is not correct. He repeatedly requested the authority to check the meter. But without checking the meter the authority issued the bill of Rs. 129477/- on the basis of defective meter. Out of Rs. 129477/- he paid 1^st installment of Rs. 25897/- on 20.03.2017, when he knew that the meter is defective he stopped further payment. On 26.04.2018 one electric bill has been issued of Rs. 44867/-. Until and unless the meter is replaced, the complainant is not able to pay the bill. The op has not removed the defective meter but it has discontinued his meter connection. In the circumstances it is prayed that Ld. Commission may graciously be pleased to pass an order to rectify the meter restore the electric connection and to pay  Rs 2,91,919/- as towards compensation and litigation costs .

Upon notice the op has contested the case by filing written version thereto. The  sum and substance of the said written version are that there is no cause of action for the instant case. The fact is that this Complainant prayed on 14.03.2017 for regeneration/rectification of bill. After reviewing the letter the AE & Station Manager alongwith technical Staff inspected the meter in presence of consumer on the same date i.e. 14.03.2017 and found no abnormalities and total KWH 45974 units in meter. The Complainant again prayed on 17.03.2017 for installments i.r.o. total OSD amounts Rs. 1,29,477/- and accordingly 05 Nos. installments were allowed, out of which he paid the 1^st installment of Rs. 25,897/- on 18.03.2017. But as he did not pay the other installments accordingly the line was disconnected on 19.06.2017 due to nonpayment of bill. Again 03 Nos. installments were allowed on 27.12.2017 against OSD amount of Rs. 1,88,916/- from this end after getting prayer from the consumer/Complainant and the Consumer/Complainant cleared up the OSD amount as per schedule the of installments i.e. on 27.12.2017, 24.01.2018 and 26.02.2018 respectively. Thereafter the service connection was reconnected on 26.02.2018. Again for the 2^nd time the Consumer/Complainant prayed for meter checking on 26.02.2018. Accordingly, the meter was checked on 09.03.2018 and found no abnormalities. Reading found total KWH 55438 units. On 06.03.2018 the Consumer applied for waiving of LPSE amount Rs. 13,034,13. Which was accordingly processed and sent to Divisional Office on 21.03.2018. Again for the 3^rd time office inspected the meter on 02.05.2018 as per Consumer’s application on 09.04.2018 and found the meter was defective and the bill for the month on May, 2018 was served on estimated basis as per existing norms and due to non payment the service connection was again disconnected on 31.05.2018 leaving on OSD amount Rs. 57,106/- unpaid. Defective meter may be replaced at the time of reconnection as per availability of meter after clearance of total OSD amount of Rs. 57,257,61/-. In the aforesaid circumstances, the op submits that the Commission may graciously be pleased to dismiss the case with cost.

Points for determination are:

1. Is the case maintainable in its present form and in law?          

2.  Is the Complainant entitled to the relief(s) as sought for?

Decision with reasons

Both the points, being inter related to each other, are taken up together for discussion  for sake of brevity and  convenience.

          We have carefully perused and assessed the affidavit of the complainant, written version filed by op, evidence of both parties , written notes of argument filed by op and other documents on record.

Having regards had to the facts and circumstances of the case it is evident that  the complainant being a consumer has alleged deficiency in service against the op- ; the bundle of facts indicate that this case is maintainable in its present form and in law.

On scanning and evaluation of the evidence, it appears that the complainant has alleged on oath that The complainant found that the meter was defective. He lodged complain to the authority on 14.03.2017 for the repair or replacement of the said meter, but till now the authority concern has not replaced the said meter or checked the meter after several request. He paid electric bill regularly. He cleared all the dues of Rs. 1,88916/- in three installments. As per receipt No. 6751726 for Jan-2017, Rs. 62972/- paid on 27.12.2018.As per receipt No. 8595606 for March -2017 Rs. 62972/- paid on 24.01.2018. The Electric Company further issued a bill of Rs. 129477/- as per order dated 18.03.2017. According to complainant this amount is not correct. He repeatedly requested the authority to check the meter. But without checking the meter the authority issued the bill of Rs. 129477/- on the basis of defective meter. Out of Rs. 129477/- he paid 1^st installment of Rs. 25897/- on 20.03.2017, when he knew that the meter is defective he stopped further payment. On 26.04.2018 one electric bill has been issued of Rs. 44867/- .Until and unless the meter is replaced, the complainant is not able to pay the bill. The op has not removed the defective meter but it has discontinued his meter connection.

In reply to the above contention on oath by the complainant, the op has mainly contended that complainant was given several scopes for payment of OSD. Again for the 3^rd time office inspected the meter on 02.05.2018 as per Consumer’s application on 09.04.2018 and found the meter was defective and the bill for the month on May, 2018 was served on estimated basis as per existing norms and due to non payment the service connection was again disconnected on 31.05.2018 leaving an OSD amount Rs. 57,106/- unpaid. Defective meter may be replaced at the time of reconnection as per availability of meter after clearance of total OSD amount of Rs. 57,257/-

 The onus to prove that complainant had consumed the units as shown on the disputed bill lay upon opposite party who failed to prove that complainant had consumed such units as mentioned in bill  of Rs. 129477/- as per order dated 18.03.2017. The opposite party has not produced report of any expert to ascertain that complainant had consumed said electricity units for the concernedperiod . Admittedly,on 02.05.2018 as per Consumer’s application on 09.04.2018 and the men of op found the meter was defective and the bill for the month on May, 2018 was served on estimated basis as per existing norms and due to non payment the service connection was again disconnected on 31.05.2018 leaving an OSD amount Rs. 57,106/- unpaid. Opposite party issued disputed bill on the basis of presumption and not as per actual consumption. Demand of opposite party on basis of higher units shown in bills is illegal, arbitrary and amounted to deficiency in service-  In some rural area seasonal cultivation / irrigation depends upon the STW connections. Such type of connections can not be whimsically disconnected. Regular redressal of complain of the consumer is required. The case is pending for about more than four years. From para 10 of the written notes of argument it appears that still reconnection is pending on twofold grounds, firstly on the ground of as per availability of meter and , secondly on the ground of ‘clearance of OSD’ which was raised on presumption on finding the meter as defective. These grounds do not hold on good foundation , and necessarily must fall.  There lies the deficiency of service on the part  of the op. The opposite party requires to be directed to overhaul account of complainant and adjust the disputed bill according to average of meter reading of preceding six months from date of disputed  bill and to receive consumption charges without imposing any surcharge and penalty and in case any amount out of demanded amount was deposited by complainant, same be also be refunded or adjusted in account of complainant , Rs. 2,000 has to be awarded towards mental agony and harassment and Rs. 2,000 for litigation expenses.

Both the points are decided accordingly.

Thus the complaint case succeeds  in part.

Hence, it is

O R D E R E D

That the CC/244 of 2018 be and the same is allowed in part on contest against the OP.

The OP is hereby directed to overhaul account of complainant and adjust the disputed bill dated 18.03.2017 according to average of meter reading of preceding six months from date of disputed bill and to receive consumption charges without imposing any surcharge and penalty and in case any amount out of demanded amount was deposited by complainant, same be also be refunded or adjusted in account of complainant. In addition to that Rs. 2,000 is awarded towards mental agony and harassment and Rs. 2,000 is awarded for litigation expenses of the complainant.

Alternatively, the op may settle the dispute with the complainant by asking the complainant to pay the 60% of the disputed bills amount after deduction of the surcharge and penalty in consultation with the Superior Officer.

The OP is further directed to change the defective meter with a new meter and to restore the electric connection  if disconnected in the event of any occasion arose out the cause of action  of the instant case.

The op will comply the above directions within 30 days from the date of this order; in default the op will be liable to pay Rs.50/- per day to the complainant till full compliance of the order.

The complainant will be at liberty to put the order into execution if requires.

Let a copy of the judgment be supplied to each of the complainant and the OP free of cost.