DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
P U R U L I A
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 25 OF 2014
Date of filing: 27th August 2014
Date of Order: 6th January 2015
Complainant Opposite Party
Smt Anjana Bhattacharjee, West Bengal State Electricity Distribution
W/o. Late S.P.Bhattacharjee, Company Limited, Represented by..
Resident of Dulmi, Purulia Assistant Engineer/Station Manager of
(Opp. to Anukul Thakur Ashram) Purulia Customer care Centre
P.O. Dulmi Nadiha, Dist. Purulia J.K.College Road, Purulia
Pin. 723 101 P.O. & Dist: Purulia, Pin. 723 101
Present:
- Sri N.K.Sarker, President.
- Sri P.K.Datta, Member
- Smt. A. Bandyopadhyay, Member.
For the Complainant : Sri G.Mahato, Advocate.
For the O.P. : Sri K.Chakraborty, Advocate.
The Complainant having consumer ID No. 24116930 has been consuming electricity through a meter installed at her residence and has been receiving bills and paying the bill amount regularly. The consumption, on and average, was 2 to 3 units per day. Some times in July’14 she received a bill for the period from 2/4/14 to 14/7/14 (for 104 days) where total units consumed as shown was 5029 which on average comes to 48.36 units per day (Vide Annex.1). She highlighted her grievance by a letter dated 14/7/14 pursuant to which one Sri N.Mahato a technical staff of O.P. was instructed to install a challenge meter (vide Annex 2) but no such meter was installed. However, the complainant was threatened with disconnection of supply unless payment of that bill is made (vide Annex 3). The complainant again submitted one application dated 23.7.14 pursuant to which an inspection was made by an employee of the O.P. who found that two fans, three bulbs and one T.V. only were being used by the complainant (vide Annex.4).
According to the complainant the installed meter recorded consumption of energy abnormally high in comparison to the consumption recorded during preceding months. Despite request, the O.P did not prepare revised bill. All such acts of O.P. are example of deficiency in service. Hence the case.
Resisting the allegations of the complainant the O.P. through written version has submitted that as per the previous and present reading total 502 units was found to have been consumed by the complainant during the period from April’14 to July’14. The meter was also O.K. and functioning properly. Asking the complainant to prove his contention made in para 7 and 8 of the petition of complaint and denying the allegation of deficiency in rendering due service to the complainant, the O.P. has prayed for dismissal of the case.
Only point for decision is whether the complainant is entitled to any relief, if so, what are the relief?
Decision with reason:
Admittedly, the complainant is a consumer under the O.P. who has been consuming electricity through a meter installed at her residence and making payment of the due amount on receipt of the bill for different periods since inception. There was no difficulty and no allegation till the receipt of a bill in the month of July’14 for the period from 2/4/14 to 14/7/14 ( for 104 days) wherein the total consumption was shown as 5029 units which on average comes to 48.36 units per day.
Ld advocate for the complainant with reference to the allegation made in para 8 of the petition of complaint and in view of the contention made by the O.P. in para 7 of the written version has submitted that the contention made in para 8 of the complaint practically goes unchallenged as the O.P. did not dispute such contention by production of any evidence what-so-ever specially when the documents by which such statement could be proved are the documents originated in the office of the O.P. True it is, the onus is upon him who asserts a fact. In this case the complainant could very well prove such allegation by production of electric bill for the relevant period originated in the office of the O.P. on the other hand, the O.P. could also dispute said contention by producing the copy of said bills for relevant period. But neither of the parties did so. On the other hand, this aspect of the matter was not under deliberation in a challenging mood. However, the contention made in para 7 of the petition of complaint is found to have been proved by an unchallenged document (vide Annex 4).
In the aforesaid circumstance, we accept that the assertion made in para 7 & 8 of the complaint are true. From para 8 of the petition of complaint it is found that for the period from 7/10/13 to 10/1/14 total consumption for 96 days was 225 units which on average comes to 2.35 units per day.
From the same paragraph it further appears that for the period from 10/1/14 to 2/4/14 total units consumed during 82 days is 180 units which on average comes to 2.20 units.
From the copy of the bill filed on behalf of the complainant on the date of argument it appears that for the period from 21/3/12 to 14/7/12 total units consumed during 115 days is 450 units which on average comes to 3.9 units per day.
Where as in the disputed bill for the period from 2/4/14 to 14/7/14 total units consumed during 104 days has been shown to be 5029 units which on average comes to 48.36 units per day.
Regard been had to the aforesaid statistics it is found that disputed bills covers major portion of the summer season and beyond when average consumption is shown 48.36 units per day. From the bill relating to almost the same period in the year 2012 the average units was 3.9 units per day.
The difference is alarmingly high. Such great difference in the statistics for the similar period of different years may be due to manifold reasons. It may be due to (1) Higher consumption by using sufficiently more electrical appliances than earlier. But the annexure 4 belies such inference. (2) There may be mistake in taking the meter reading and or calculation of the total units consumed. But such possibilities has been denied by O.P (3) The installed meter might have recorded wrong consumption because of some mechanical fault (be it mentioned here that a challenged meter was ultimately installed). But on the date of argument Ld advocate for the O.P. by submitting a document had brought to our notice that the installed meter and the challenged meter gave the same reading.
Since it is evident from the materials on record that the consumption during the disputed period is alarmingly higher than that for almost the corresponding period of earlier years there must be some reason specially when it is no body’s case that since before or during the disputed period the complainant started using more electrical appliances which led to higher consumption. Moreover, the unchallenged document vide annex. 4 shows that even during the disputed period the complainant was using the same appliances viz. one fans, two bulbs, one T.V etc as she has been using since long. So higher reading was not because of user of more electrical appliances.
Another possibility which came for discussion and consideration during argument is that, for some reason or other, due to some mechanical fault suddenly crept in the meter (which went unnoticed) made it record faulty consumption which resulted in preparing the disputed bill. Though Ld advocate for the O.P. vehemently tried to discard such possibility yet we must not be unmindful to a proverb “where there is smoke there must be fire”. In this case also we find the consumption shown in the disputed bill is highly exorbitant compared to the consumption for the relevant period of earlier years but there is no proof that during the disputed period the complainant used more electrical appliances responsible for such higher consumption. So there must be some reason for such higher reading of consumption though the exact reason remains untraced/unnoticed.
Having regard to entire fact and circumstances of the case we are convinced to hold, with reference to the materials on record, that there must be some unnoticed reason for which the O.P. had to prepare the disputed bill to which the complainant had no contribution.
Having regard to the materials on record and the average units of consumption we find that it never exceeded 5 units per day except the disputed period.
Accordingly, we must hold that such units shown in the disputed bill is erroneous. Accordingly, we also hold that by demanding payment for such units consumed, there is deficiency in rendering service to the complainant.
Ld advocate for the complainant has submitted that complainant is ready to pay charges for 5 units per day during the disputed period and in that event the complainant is ready to forego litigation cost and compensation. Ld. Advocate for the O.P. agrees to the proposal provided such bill amount is paid at a time and within the time specified by the Ld Forum. We hold the proposal very reasonable and accordingly like to dispose of the case. Hence,
ORDERED
That the petition of complaint be and the same is allowed on contest but without any cost.
The O.P. is directed to prepare fresh bill for the period from 2/4/14 to 14/7/14 @ 5 (five) units per day with other usual charges and hand it over to the complainant within 15 (fifteen) days from the date of this order and the complainant is directed to pay the bill amount within a month from the date of receipt of the bill.
Let a copy of this judgement be supplied to the parties free of charge.
