DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR,

 KOLKATA-700 0144

      C.C. CASE NO. __09_ _ OF ___2018

DATE OF FILING :_19.1.2018         DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT: 30.11.2018

Present                 :   President       :   Ananta Kumar Kapri

                                 Member(s)    :    Subrata Sarker  & Jhunu Prasad

COMPLAINANT   :            Kartick Chandra Pal, s/o late Siddheswar Pal of Vill. Napukuria, P.O Gorerhat, P.S Joynagar, South 24-Parganas, Pin-7443372.

•  VERSUS  -

O.P/O.Ps                    : Assistant Engineer & Station Manager, W.B.S.E.D.C.L Dakshin Barasat Consumer Care Centre, Uttar Kalikapur, Dakshin Barasat, Pin-743372.

_______________________________________________________________________

                                                J  U  D  G  M  E  N  T

Sri Ananta Kumar  Kapri, President

                Raising exorbitant electric bill by the O.P has caused staggering headache to the complainant and, therefore, the complainant has approached this Forum by filing the instant case under section 12 of the C.P Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. 

                Facts leading to the filing of the instant case may be epitomized as follows.

                The complainant is a consumer of domestic electricity connection from the O.P to his residential house. His meter stopped and it was detected on 8.10.2017 by the employee of the O.P. On 18.10.2017, the complainant submitted an application before the O.P and thereby he requested the O.P to take proper step as his meter stopped functioning . On 12.10.2017, a bill was sent by the O.P to the complainant and thereby the O.P charged Rs.4,942/- for the period from 6.6.2017 to 8.10.2017 on the basis of meter reading taken on 8.10.2017. The aforesaid electric bill is said to be highly inflated and not raised in accordance with the norms and rules of WBERC. So, alleging deficiency in service, the complainant has filed the instant case ,praying for revision of bill and installation of a new meter. Hence, the case.  

               The O.P has filed written statement to contest herein. It is contended in the written statement that the meter stopped on 6.6.2017 and that the bill was raised on the basis of consumption of the same period in the previous year as per regulations. Nothing unlawful has been done on the part of the O.P,while raising the bill. There is no deficiency in service caused by the O.P and, therefore, the case should be dismissed in limini with cost.

                Upon the averments of the parties, the following points are formulated for consideration.

POINT FOR DETERMINATION

1. Has the O.P caused deficiency in service ,if any, by raising the bill dated 12.10.2017?
2. Is the complainant  entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for ?

EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES

                 Evidence on affidavit is filed by the complainant and the same is kept in the record after consideration. Written version of the O.P is treated as evidence of him, vide petition dated 17.5.2018.  BNA is  filed by the O.P and the same is also kept in the record after consideration.

DECISION WITH REASONS

Point no.1 & 2  :

              Already heard the submissions of Ld. Lawyers ,appearing for the parties. Perused the petition of complaint, the written version , the documents filed therein by the parties and also the BNA filed by the O.P. Considered all these.

             The electric bill dated 12.10.2017 has been subjected to criticism by the complainant. According to the complainant, the bill is an inflated one and not prepared in accordance with the Regulation of the Electricity Department. On the other hand, it is the version of the O.P that the said bill is prepared in accordance with the Regulations of the Department. In the context of such submission and counter-submission, it is to be seen whether the bill is prepared in accordance with the provisions of WBERC.

             The relevant provision is contained in Clause 3.6.1 of Notification no.55/WBERC dated 7.8.2013 and the same reads as follows:

             “If on  inspection by the distribution licensee on its own or on the basis of a complaint of a consumer, the meter of a consumer is found defective or defunct for a reason other than theft or electricity as provided in Section 135 of the Act and no theft of energy can be reasonably suspected, the consumer shall pay provisionally, for such consumption of electricity for the period during which the meter has been suspected to have been defective or defunct, on the basis of average consumption and other parameters for the preceding and/or succeeding three months or during any previous and/or subsequent period that may be reasonably comparable before the meter has been found to be defective or defunct. If, however, the period during which the meter has been defective or defunct cannot be ascertained, such period shall be limited to a period of three months immediately preceding the date of inspection”.

              It is laid down in the above regulation that bill for consumption of electricity is to be raised, when the meter is defective or defunct, on the basis of average consumption for the preceding or succeeding three months of the defective period or on the basis of consumption of previous or subsequent period of the period for which the meter was defective, which may reasonably be comparable. A discretion has been given to the bill raising authority in the Regulation in the matter of adopting the average consumption; they may take into account the average consumption of preceding or succeeding three months of the period for which the meter was defective. They can also take into consideration the average consumption of the period which may reasonably be comparable to the period for which the meter was defective and taking into consideration the consumption of the said period, the authority is entitled to raise the bill.

             Coming to the facts of the instant case, it is found that the O.P has prepared the bill on the basis of the average consumption for the period from 27.6.2016 to 29.9.2016 and the average consumption was at that period 7 units per day approximately.

            Let us see now whether this discretion has been exercised by the O.P judiciously or not. It has been contended on behalf of the complainant that the O.P should have raised the bill on the basis of average consumption for the period just preceding the period for which the meter was defective and the consumption of that period having not been taken into account, the O.P has committed a severe blunder by disregarding the provisions of Regulations. The period from 27.6.2016 to 29.9.2016 has been taken into account by the O.P for raising the bill. This period was in summer season. The period from 6.6.2017 to 8.10.2017 was also in summer season and ,therefore, it is well known to everybody that the consumption in summer season is much more higher than that in winter season. This being so, the O.P has rightly and reasonably compared between the period for which the bill is prepared and the period of the subject bill. Such comparison appears to be reasonably made and the discretion also appears to be reasonably exercised by the O.P in the matter of raising the subject bill. If , there was any violation of the Regulation in the matter of raising the bill, it would have been a deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. But, now it is found that there has been no deficiency in service caused on the part of the O.P in so far as the raising of the subject bill is concerned.

             It has also transpired on record and which is also undisputed by the O.P that the meter of the complainant has gone defective on 8.10.2017. Since then, a year has passed away; but, the said defective meter has not been replaced by a new one by the O.P. This is nothing but sheer negligence on the part of the O.P and this negligence of the O.P in the matter of replacement of the old meter by a new one is considered as a deficiency in service.

              In the result, the case succeeds in part.

               Hence,

ORDERED

             That the complaint case be and the same is decreed in part on contest  against the O.P .

             The O.P is directed to replace the old meter of the complainant by a new one within 15 days of this order and to raise bills subsequent to installation of the new meter in accordance with the regulations on the basis of the new meter reading.

             The bills prior to the installation of the new meter shall be prepared in accordance with the provisions of the Regulations and the complainant is remained bound to make payment for those bills.

         Let a free copy of this order be given to the parties concerned at once.   

                                                                                                                   President

I / We agree

                            Member                                    Member

Dictated and corrected by me

                           President