West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/124/2014

Himanghshu Adhikary. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Balichak Customer Care Centre, W.B.S.E.D.C.L. - Opp.Party(s)

25 Feb 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

 Complaint case No.124/2014                                                                                               Date of disposal: 25/02/2015                               

 BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT :  Mr. Sujit Kumar Das.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mrs. Debi Sengupta.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mr. Kapot Chattopadhyay.

  

 For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff : Mr. S Pandey, Advocate.

 For the Defendant/O.P.S.                       : Mr. D. Das Mahapatra, Advocate.                                   

          

 Sri Himanghshu Adhikary,  S/o Lt Rashbihari Adhikary, Vill. Fulgeria, P.O. Debra Bazar, P.S.

 Debra, Dist- Paschim Medinipur…………..Complainant

                                                           Vs.

 Balichak Customer Care Centre, West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company, At  

 Balichak, P.O. Balichak, Dist- Paschim Medinipur...……………Op.

         The case of the complainant Sri Himanghshu Adhikary, in short, is that he is a farmer having a mini deep tube well for the purpose of his cultivation with the help of electricity under service connection ID No.212056236 regularly making payment of electricity bills to the OP.  It is alleged by the complainant that he suddenly received an erroneous, vague & fabricated bill dated 09/03/2013 demanding rs.49,864/- on account of consumption of energy 14,344 units for the month of February 2013.  Against the disputed bill the complainant submitted an application for scrutiny/inquiry  but the OP did not consider the same, rather they continues to same bills for subsequent months mentioning therein the outstanding amount as of the said disputed bills.  Moreover, the OP threatens to disconnect the service connection.  Getting no reliefs from the OP, the complainant has ultimately come before us with a prayer for passing order against the OP for correction of the disputed bills and easy monthly installments etc.  In this connection, some documents viz disputed bill dated 09/03/2013, copies of six applications and a bunch of paid up bills are submitted by the Complainant.  

         The Op contested the case by filling written objection challenging that the case is not maintainable for want of cause of action.  It is also stated by the OP that the complainant is a S.T.W. consumer and the electric meter was installed at top of a pole as like as service connections of other

Contd……………..P/2

 

-  ( 2 ) -

 

consumers in the locality.  So, it was difficult for the OP to take actual reading of units on regular basis from those meters including the disputed meter in question.  So, all the poles were pulled down and accumulated reading were taken down for preparation of bills on monthly distribution.  Similarly the bill for February 2013 has been prepared.  In this matter, other consumers requested for installment and accordingly they paid their bills.  On the accumulated reading for the month of February 2013 in the case of present complainant the amount was rs.55,401/- which is correct, genuine and legal and the bill should be paid by the complainant. So, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP and as such the case should be dismissed.  In this subject order copy of  reading report is submitted on behalf of the OP.

          Upon the case of both parties the following issues are framed.

Issues:

1)Whether the case is maintainable in its present from?

2)Whether the complainant has any cause of action for presentation of this petition of complaint?

3)Whether the case is barred by Law?

4)Whether the complainant is entitled for getting relief as prayed for.?

 

Decision with reasons

Issue Nos.1 to 4:

              All the issues are taken up together for discussion as those are interlinked each other for the purpose of arriving at a correct decision in the dispute.

              Ld. Advocate for the complainant made his argument that the disputed bill is very much unmatched with all other previous bills already paid by the complainant since the time of installation of service connection.  For supporting the fact, Ld. Advocate has referred to the paid up bills.  The disputed bills showing the consumption of units is very much unusually high, imaginary and impractical which cannot be accepted for consumption in a month.  The OP goes on threatening for disconnection of supply in the event of non-payment of the disputed bill.  The complainant several time requested for correction of the bill.  But the OP did not care for it, specially when they had no practice of taking monthly recording of reading and preparing bill on their basis.  This is totally deficiency of service on the part of the OP/W.B.S.E.D.C.L.  Thus, favourable order is required to be passed by the Ld. Forum.

           Strong objection raised by the Ld. Advocate representing the OP that the bill in question is genuinely prepared on the basis of timely collected reading report and as such no deficiency in service is taken place as alleged by the complainant.  So, the case should be dismissed.

Contd……………..P/3

 

-  ( 3 ) -

 

        We have carefully considered the case.  The paid up bills from February 2011 to April 2014 are very much relevant, vital and reasonable for the purpose of assessment of the disputed units relating to the month of February 2013 since the admitted fact that the OP used to collect one time reading by pulling down the meter on top of the pole.

        Upon careful scrutiny of the undisputed paid up bills for the year 2011,2012, 2013 & 2014, it prima facie appears total units 4153 during the period of 2011, 5515 units except the disputed bill dated 09/03/2013  for 14344 units during 2013 and 4129 units during the period of 2014 were undisputedly consumed by the complainant.  All the paid up bills against the units as prepared by the OP on the basis of casual collection of reading report.  If that be so, it is very much difficult for accepting the colossus figure of units 14344 in a single month of consumption by a prudent person.  In this connection, it is also difficult to correct the bill in absence of any scientific mechanism but on mathematics calculation in respect of previously raised bills which were already paid by way of regular practice of the complainant from the year 2011.  So, we have preferred to consider the units from the year 2011 in order to arrive at a just, fair and reasonable correction of the disputed bill dated 09/03/2013.  Upon calculation on average basis against paid up bills from February 2011 up to April 2014, the bill dated 09/03/2013 deserves for 4376 units in place of 14344.

        Having considered the entire case of the parties as discussed hereinavbove, It is held and decided that the disputed bill dated 09/03/2013 is baseless, hypothetical and not reasonable and as such the same deserves to be rectified for the purpose of preparation of a correct and modified bill on account of equitable claim of energy for 4376 units.  Thus, the issues are disposed of in favour of the complainant.

                         Hence,

                                 It is Ordered, 

                                             that the case be and the same is allowed  on contest  without cost.

             The complainant shall make payment of electricity bill on account of energy for 4376 units alongwith usual meter rent etc. for the month of March 2013 to be raised accordingly by the OP/W.B.S.E.D.C.L. against the complainant  within 30 days from this date of order.             

Dictated & Corrected by me

              

         President                          Member                        Member                             President

                                                                                                                           District Forum

                                                                                                                       Paschim Medinipur.