This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

          Complainant by filing this complaint has sub mitted that complainant is the occupier of Flat No. 9/1, Nalin Sarkar Street, 1^st Floor, Hatibagan, Kolkata – 700 004, P.S. Shyampukur and got a new electric connection after development of the building on 10-06-1999 being consumer no.41005059033 from CESC Ltd. and the complainant is a senior citizen being retired from Jessop and practically he has been suffering from heart disease and after operation he is facing much trouble due to unethical overact of the OP.

          It is further submitted that OP CESC gave meter No.2745278 for new connection since then all bills are paid by the complainant regularly and later complainant made CRES A/c. No.3893 under CESC and deposited Rs.81,000/- by three payments to get interest of 9.50% to be adjusted for bill payments on prepaid basis, as per CESC Rule from June, 2002 up till now.

          But since installation of the new meter complainant has been facing various problems from CESC and that has been informed by letters and verbally to various departments of CESC on several dates but they did not take any action for which he appeared before Ombudsman and Ombudsman passed order on 24-10-2007 and in such way he mentioned several examples as made in the complaint only to show and it will prove that Senior Citizen couple are being harassed for last 13 years and in the mean time defective meters were supplied which has been over-registering units that has been admitted by the OP.  Thereafter, complainant prayed for adjustment of bill but that has not been done and complainant went to Shyampukur Office they did not receive the complaint on which the complainant compelled to make the complaint at Esplanade Office, but said office also did not respond and many queries were made by the complainant but OP did not answer.

          Moreover, the power position is not good in the locality for which he has been suffering and load-shedding being continued whereas neighbours’ power position was stable ultimately a check meter was installed on 23-03-2009 and that was continued up to 31-03-2009 which is an old meter which started from 807.25 unit but that meter also showed over-registration of the existing meter and after four years that meter was also changed and as such meter No.33799743 was replaced by 4032165 on 17-06-2009.

          In the meantime complainant complained to Ombudsman for excess Unit and to compensate and testing of meter and submit fit certificate of that meter and also for giving the continuous power supplying suitable electric supply but Ombudsman authority rejected.  But CESC Authority by letter dated 11-04-2009 agreed to compensate but that has not yet been given.  But fact remains that second meter also causes problem for high consumption that was reported to different department grievance cell but they also refused to give any reply and relief but subsequently deputed DM(W) Cell on different dates took the matter but no result is yet received and in many manner complainant reported the matter to the CESC and CESC admitted that present meter is over-registering @4.89% by  secrete investigation  and that was done on 02-02-2013 in absence of the complainant.  But complainant’s grievance is that the over-registering percentage as noted by the OP is not correct.  Thereafter, OP informed the complainant as per proposal to adjust over-registering @4.89% from 17-06-2009 what the complainant did not accept.  Because complainant made a calculation wherefrom it is found the defective meter since installation is over-registering @19% but anyhow the OP did not take any initiative which also did not give any proper relief to the complainant for which complainant appears before this Forum for redressal and on the ground the OP did not render proper service but rendered service in deficient and negligent manner by harassing the complainant in so many manner.       

          On the other hand OP by filing written statement submitted that the allegations of the complainant are from 1990-2013 and most of the allegations are admittedly redressed and so same are completely barred by limitation.

          It is specifically mentioned in the written statement by the OP that complainant instead of ventilating his specific grievance acted as a reformer of social order and also canvassed for consumers constitutional rights.  But it is admitted that the supply of the complainant was commissioned by way of installation of meter number 2745278 on 10-06-1999 and for complaint of over-registering the units meter was examined at site on 26-07-2004 by OPs Consumer Grievance Cell but meter was found working in order and further meter was tested against a check meter installed from 22-01-2005 to 31-01-2005 when it was found over-registering is by 2.06% which is within the limits of error as per Section 57 of I.E. rules, 1956.  Further it is submitted that as per order of the Ombudsman vide order dated 09-03-2005 that the old existing meter was replaced by a new static meter in order to avoid any inaccurate registration in the best interest of both the consumer and licensee and accordingly the said meter was replaced by meter No.3379974 on 18-04-2005.  Regarding complainant’s allegation of frequent power failure said allegation is completely baseless.  But fact remains said power failure was caused due to load-shedding but in the mean time the phase of supply was changed in October, 2006 but request for another change could not be complied since it involved isolation of network which was not technically feasible.  It is further submitted that against allegation of the complainant for installation as advised for the proposed distribution transformer located in the locality of the complainant’s premises which was commissioned on 22-11-2007 and the same was confirmed by the OPs vide letter dated 15-12-2007 to the Deputy Director, Traffic Engineer, Office of the Ombudsman so the said allegations are false and hopelessly barred by limitation.  Further the complaint of over-registration in respect of his meter vide letter dated 28-01-2013, meter no.4032165 which is presently registering the consumption of the complainant was fixed on 17-06-2009 but it is admitted that the said meter also is over-registering by 4.89% and that was communicated to the complainant vide letter dated 04-02-2013 by the Manager (CGC) offering credit of the over registered unit from that account of August, 2012.  The offer of credit adjustment was extended further to the date of installation of meter vide letter dated 30-04-2013.

          It is also admitted that complainant is maintaining advance payment account which has been floated from CRES Account, 2013 and his bill was adjusted against said account.

          It has been alleged that he prepared one calculation relating of over-registering 19% which has no basis, hence, there is no substance in respect of the allegation and for which the present complaint should be dismissed.

Decision with Reasons

On extensive study of the complaint and also the written version of the OP and after hearing the Ld. Lawyer of the OP and present complaint personally and further relying upon CESC’s particularly letter dated 30-04-2013 it is found that no doubt even after one after another change of meter till today the present meter no.4032165 is over-registering unit @4.89% and OP offered as special case to extend the credit period from the date of installation of the meter in circuit from 17-06-2009 and OP requested the complainant to accept the proposal in that case arrangement would be made to replace the meter in question so OP can supervise with the credit adjustment.  So, defects of the meter as alleged by the complainant as approved by the OP for which their letter dated 30-04-2013 was sent and it is also admitted that over-registering is being continued from 17-06-2009.         About CRES OP has admitted that complainant has a CRES with the OP and the statement of accounts of the aforesaid CRES A/c for the period from 01-06-2002 to 30-03-2012 was sent to the complainant. 

          It is also admitted that there was an interruption of supply for which OP commissioned another helpline being No.18605001912. So, considering the above letters it is clear that the complainant is continuously being harassed by the OP and complainant being harassed has been sending letters to different offices time to time and some relief has been given but till now the meter is defective, it is no doubt an unfortunate act of the OP.  Fact remains vide letter dated 27-05-2013 OP reported to the complainant that they are closing the CRES scheme and so asked the complainant to withdraw the balance of the CRES A/c. including credit interest upon intimating the OP if complainant desire to do so by filing and sending the enclosed refund option form and for sending the same to the OP’s  TATA Consultancy Service Ltd. (TCS) so that they receive and in between 15-07-2013 to 27-05-2013 the balance of the above CRES A/c. is Rs.47,074-39 and by that letter also reported to the complainant if OP does not receive, the complainant’s claim as stated above within 15-07-2013 the balance standing credit of complainant’s CRES A/c. for monthly Electricity consumption bill would be transferred to the Advance Payment Scheme in favour of the complainant as mentioned because in the meantime CRES scheme has been withdrawn by the OP and is introduced Advance Payment Scheme carrying an interest rate @6% p.a.  So, it is clear that OP already reported about withdrawal of the CRES and introduction of Advance Payment Scheme and option was given to the OP but anyhow OP did not accept it but alleged that he wants to get benefit of the CRES but in this regard we have confirmed that when electricity authority close down their CRES scheme then complainant ought to have receive the total amount of Rs.47,047-34 within the stipulated date as mentioned in the letter of the CESC dated 27-05-2013 but complainant did not opt it for which that was converted and transferred to the new scheme Advance Payment Scheme and invariably complainant shall have to get 6% interest but in respect of CRES the complainant grievance cannot be entertained by this Forum because this scheme sometimes is introduced and sometimes it was changed as per decision of the Company but as electricity consumer the complainant must have to follow the direction of the OP in respect of CRES Scheme or Advance Payment Scheme.  So, in this regard invariably complainant shall get benefit of Advance Payment Scheme and in respect of this dispute we are not finding any fault on the part of the OP.

          After overall evaluation of the entire materials we have gathered no doubt OP has tried to make a fun with the complainant by saying that complainant has become a social worker and his activities are not satisfactory to the OP and tried to make this complainant as a canvasser in respect of the consumer’s constitutional right but we have failed to understand how the OP authority can criticized at present complainant as consumer he has right to raise such grievance to protect the right of any consumer for upliftment of any consumers right but the CESC authority cannot criticize for that but CESC should be more cautious in future to criticize or to pass remarks as done by the OP but truth is that the meter has been changed in three cases as per grievance of the complaint by the authority as there was no fault on the part of the complainant but OP did it when Ombudsman passed order then it is clear that OP is very vindictive against the present consumer but the person is known to the OP but we have realized that OP as Electricity Company is unwilling to serve the purpose of the consumer but here and there continues their unmerchantable business and making profit by keeping consumer in dark but this practice cannot be denied and for which  OP should be penalized for such overact and in this case it is proved harassment of the complainant is continuous in nature and that has been done by the OP for long years.  It is settled principle of law that continuous harassment cannot be treated barred by limitation by any means if Consumer Forum is blind and they are found sitting idle without disposal of the case with speed in that case the traders and capitalist and merchants shall have to continue their unmerchantable practice to earn their profits, create their wealth after squeezing money from the consumers and in this case it is proved OP has harassed the complainant continuously without giving proper relief when for such harassment as social reformer as a consumer to establish right this complaint is filed so we have gathered that the CESC Company authority is no doubt against consumers and consumer movement what has been expressed in their written version.  They are against the consumer right and they are trying to crush the consumer movement and for which they have taken plea in the written statement and it is an example for which we apprehend that the consumer movement shall be controlled by the pressure of the capitalist and traders and merchants who are here and there for creating their capital and squeezing money of the consumer and by harassing the customers.

          Most interesting factor is that they have their customer care but they are not entertaining the consumer then CESC Authority is to paste such a plackard “no customer care”.  Fact remains thousands of people are facing trouble for immoral and unsocial activities of the employees of the CESC but they are very much interested about the businessmen who are committing theft but the customers who are regularly paying the sum without committing any theft are not served by the OP and such an approach of the OP in the present case is no doubt unwarranted, uncalled for and against consumer movement.

          In the light of the above observation we are convinced to hold that no doubt OP with intention harassed this complainant and very aged person continuously since 1999 and till now the said meter is over-registering as admitted by the OP but that has not been settled and after that how the OP can say and criticize complainant as a vanguard of the consumer movement invariably complainant has his right to raise allegation against the CESC Company about their mal-practice and ill-conduct and that has been proved by the complainant in this case against the OP.

In the result, the case succeeds.

Hence,

Ordered

That the case be and the same is allowed on contest with a cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only).

          OPs are directed to remove this present meter of the complainant and place one new meter free from all defects along with handing over a certificate that it is not defective and will not harass the consumer in future and complainant shall get suitable electricity consumption and give all such help always on call so that an aged person about 75 years shall not be harassed in future and further give and supply continuous electricity to the area without any question of load-shedding because it is the duty of the electricity authority to give supply electricity continuously and for that purpose if there is necessity for change any item that shall be changed.  Modern technology shall be applied by the CESC so that the supply may be stable and without any interruption when CESC shall have to raise capital by their business then their business must be fair in all respects.  If the company is social and merchantable invariably the consumer must be satisfied because it is the principle of law that the businessmen or merchant must have to serve the consumer to serve their own benefit and no unmerchantable activities of any company shall be overlooked by any Fora.

          OPs are directed to comply the order within one month and report whether he has complied the spirit of the order and satisfied the complainant.  The CESC shall have to take 70% of the bill amount in respect of the units consumed by the complainant till today since the date of installation of this defective meter out of the total amount over the consumed units and after that adjust the bill and sent a fresh bill to the complainant showing adjustment as per spirit of this order.

          For adopting such illegal and immoral act on the part of the OP, OP shall have to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) to the complainant and also for harassment made for continuous period and it shall be paid within one month from the date of this order. 

          OP is directed to comply order within one month from the date of this order positively failing which for non-compliance and disobedience of this order OP shall have to pay punitive damages @1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) per month till full satisfaction of the decree and even if it is found they are reluctant in that case penal proceeding shall be started against them u/s.27 of the C.P. Act.