Date of filing: 08.08.2016 Date of disposal: 26.02.2018
Complainant: Amrita Bhattacharya, W/o. Bhujay Bhattacharya, Brindaban Lane, PO. & PS: Kulti, District: Burdwan, PIN – 713 343.
Opposite Party: 1. Asst. Engineer & Station Manager, West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd., PO: Barakar, PS: Kulti, Dist: Burdwan, PIN – 713 324.
2. Chairman & Managing Director, West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd., Vidyut Bhawan, 7th Floor, ‘A’ Block, Salt Lake City, Kolkata – 700 091.
Present:
Hon’ble Member: Smt. Nivedita Ghosh.
Hon’ble Member: Dr. Tapan Kumar Tripathy.
Appeared for the Complainant: Ld. Advocate, Suman Bez.
Appeared for the Opposite Party No. 1: Ld. Advocate, Sukumar Mondal.
Appeared for the Opposite Party No. 2: None (ex parte).
J u d g e m e n t
This is a case under Section 12 of the C.P. Act for an award directing the Ops to pay Rs. 50,000=00 as compensation against loss incurred in running the business, Rs. 10,000=00 as compensation against mental agony and harassment, Rs. 5,000=00 as litigation cost and Rs. 1,000=00 as payment towards cost of stationery, typing, postage etc.
The complainant’s case in short is that she had been running a Xerox centre in one room with electricity connection from West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd., Barakar. On 01.8.2005 she made an application to the Station Manager, Barakar for disconnecting the electricity connection. After four months the disconnection was done on 02.01.2006. The complainant paid the electricity bills up to the period of March – May, 2005 and the payment of bill for the quarter September – November, 2005 was Rs. 255/- only. On 11.02.2014 the complainant applied for reconnection to the authority. While reconnecting the line disconnection & reconnection charge amounting Rs. 100/- only was paid along with the dues of September – November, 2005 to the authority. After the reconnection the complainant asked for quarterly bill to the authority. But the first bill delivered to the complainant after the reconnection on 30.3.2015 for the period of December 2005 – February 2006 amounting Rs. 3,660=00. After that the complainant made a petition before the OP on 07.5.2015 seeking clarification of the exorbitant bill. Without any reply the OP delivered another bill for the period of March 2006 – May 2006 on 17.6.2015 amounting Rs. 6,285=00. The third & the fourth bills were delivered to the complainant on 16.9.2015 & 27.12.2015 amounting Rs. 3,913=00 & Rs. 4,210=00 respectively. The complainant went several times at the Barakar office of the OP and Divisional Office at Asansol but they did not make any clarification of the bills. At last the complainant made a petition on 04.4.2006 before the Divisional Manager, WBSEDCL, Asansol praying for settlement of the dispute by giving clear breakup of the bills but the OP did not reply.
This complaint has been contested by the OP-1 by filing written version denying all the material allegations made by the complainant in the petition of complaint. The OP-1 submits that the complainant made an application on 28.7.2014 stating that she did not receive any bill from the OP for the consumer ID NO. 513036642 for the last 13 months after reconnection. Actually it is a matter of fact that the complainant applied for temporary disconnection of her aforesaid service connection on 01.8.2005 on the reason that she could not run her business for her personal reason. At the request of the complainant the line was disconnected temporarily on 02.01.2006. After lapse of eight years the complainant on 11.02.2014 requested in writing the OP-1 for getting reconnection of the aforesaid line. The line was reconnected on 18.02.2014 after getting payment of the dues for accounting period of September 2005 to November 2005 which was amounted to Rs. 255/- and Rs. 100/- as disconnection and reconnection charge on the same day i.e. on 18.02.2014. As per WBSEDCL norms owing to disconnection for such a long period, the system displayed the connection to be “deemed disconnected permanently”. Thereafter the matter was communicated and consulted with the concerned higher authority in order to waive the deemed disconnection so that the connection can be made live which would, in turn, help in smoothly generating bills. Due to the reason as stated above, the delay occurred in generating the first bill after reconnection. The complainant filed petition dated 07.5.2015 seeking clarification of the bill raised for December 2005 to February 2006. The Op submits that the aforesaid bill itself contained consumption period of December 2005 to February 2006 when the previous and present reading was recorded as 568 as the meter was then disconnected. As per rule of WBSEDCL the billing system follows the previous period and hence, the accounting month is displayed on the bill as December 2005 to February 2006; the actual consumption period was from February 2014 to July 2015. Since the meter was temporarily disconnected, on the prayer of the complaint, the later is remain bound to pay the meter rent and minimum charge/fixed charge since the date of disconnection of the meter temporarily. The OP-1 submits that once the connection was made live as per computerized billing system, the first bill was generated on 17.03.2015 for Rs. 3,660=00 which was included with the charge for meter rent and minimum charge/fixed charge as per norms of WBSEDCL. The aforesaid bill was of zero units for the consumption period of December 2005 to February 2006 since the meter was disconnected for the aforesaid period. The complainant has alleged about the bill for the period of March 2006 to May 2006 as arbitrary. The bill was generated on 17.6.2015 and it was amounted to Rs. 6,285=00 which was included with the previous outstanding bill as the complainant had not made payment of the same. This was an estimated bill as the meter reader found the premises was under lock and key. The bill for 403 units were claimed which was also prepared as per WBSEDCL norms where estimation has been made on the basis of load connected. The estimation was automatically got adjustment once physical meter reading was taken. However, the complainant requested for regeneration of the bill and the same was prepared and a new bill was generated on 19.12.2015 which was amounted to Rs. 4,210=00 and which was again included with the outstanding bill of Rs. 3,944.73 P as the complainant had not made payment of such outstanding. The OP-1 as per request of the complainant settled the matter on table and regenerated a fresh bill dated 03.9.2015 recording the previous reading 568 and present reading 581 on 25.7.2015. Be it stated that due to changes of system, the date of previous reading was recorded in the aforesaid bill as 01.04.2010 instead of 19.5.2005. The complainant was verbally clarified about the fresh bill generated by the OP-1 redressing all disputes raised by the complainant regarding the bills marked with “D-8”and “D-10”and clarified the OP-1 verbally each and every item of the aforesaid bill. The aforesaid bill dated 03.9.2015 was made for 13 units which was the post meter reading. It was also informed to the complainant that the breakup of the bill was clearly given on the bill itself along with previous reading date, present reading date, billing date and the expected next reading date. The complainant showed her full satisfaction about the aforesaid bill dated 03.09.2015 but has willfully and deliberately filed the instant complaint without giving any opportunity to the OP-1 to meet with the grievance sought for in the instant complaint. However, question of “slab benefit” or “monitory loss” did not arise for delay in generation of the bill. The OP-1 further states that the claim of compensation by the complainant against loss incurred in running the business is absurd as reconnection has already been done within proper time frame. Apart from that, the complainant herself declared that she could not run the business due to personal reason. So the OP-1 is not in any way responsible for the loss if incurred by her for her personal reason in the said business. Moreover, the meter reader found the premises locked for two consecutive billing periods which implies that the business was not in running condition though the line was then reconnected. The OP-1 prays for dismissal of the case with exemplary cost.
Decision with reasons:-
To prove her case the complainant has submitted all the necessary evidences. Between both the Ops, the OP-2 did not appear or file any written version and hence is declared as ex parte. The OP-1 has given their written version with questionnaires to the complainant to which the complainant has also replied reasonably. But the meter readings, meter rent in all the bills, fixed minimum charges in the bills and overall the proper clarifications of each bill are not delivered to the complainant which can pacify her queries. Hence, it is
O r d e r e d
that the Consumer Complaint being No. 135/2016 be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP-1 and ex parte against the OP-2 with cost.
The OP-1 is instructed to clarify all the queries of the complainant between one month from the date of this order.
The Ops are directed to pay either jointly or severally Rs. 2,000=00 as compensation against mental agony & harassment and Rs. 1,000=00 as litigation cost within 45 days from the date of this order, failing which, the complainant is at liberty to put the entire award in execution as per provisions of law.
Let plain copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per provisions of law.
Dictated & Corrected by me:
(Tapan Kumar Tripathy
Member
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Tapan Kumar Tripathy) (Nivedita Ghosh)
Member Member
DCDRF, Burdwan DCDRF, Burdwan
