Order-13.

Date-06/11/2015.

In this complaint Complainant  ManashSengupta by filing this complaint has submitted that complainant is a customer of CESC Ltd. op for using of electricity and ops are the service provider.Complainant submitted that his usual monthly consumption bill did not go beyond Rs. 300/- to Rs. 400/- per month.But the bill for the month of October-2014 & November-2014 was Rs. 6,250/- and it was highly excessive and to prove the veracity of his statement, complainant produced last 6 months bill for consideration.Complainant was surprised to receive such a frivolous amount of bill and due to wretched financial condition, complainant was not in a position to pay such inflated bill as a domestic consumer.

Fact remains that complainant requested the ops to consider the matter but no result.So, under compulsion and for fear of disconnection of electricity, complainant paid Rs. 1,000/- in the month of November-2014 and Rs. 1,540/- in the month of January-2015 as per the direction of the CESC Authorities and at last complainant further paid Rs. 1,260/- in the month of March-2015 in order to get rid of disconnection of electricity.

Complainant wrote many letters to the CESC Ltd. complaining about the inflated and exorbitant billing which culminated to such a peak which is not feasible in a domestic billing related to complain form of CESC Ltd. on 22.12.2014 and to prove his claim as strong, complainant submitted 6 months Bill of electricity on and from April-2014 to Sept. 2014 and complainant also informed that from the inception of the installation of electric connection, it has never raised such an exorbitant and inflated bill.In such circumstances, complainant filed a complaint to this Forum against the ops CESC Ltd. and prayed for directing the CESC Ltd. to cancel the bill of October and bill of November 2014 for Rs. 8,740/- and sent a revised and fresh bill for payment and also prayed before this Forum by the complainant to direct the ops not to disconnect the line out and for proper redressal.

On the other hand both op nos. 1 & 2 by filing written version submitted that complainant is not a consumer in terms of C.P. Act and the controversy involved in the complaint was not a consumer dispute.The present complaint is frivolous and vexatious and liable to be dismissed.

Ops also informed that the meter no.4922218 was installed on 26.10.2013 and the bills upto August 2014 were raised as per actual meter reading and in August-2014 meter reading was 644 units, in Sept. 2014 the reading of the meter was 1040 units that means there were extra consumption of 396 units which was much higher than that the consumption pattern.

Subsequently a message was displayed on the face of the bill of Sept. 2014 stating that ‘Meter read but billed on rental due to high advance, will be regularized subsequently’ and the meter reading of October-2014 A/C was 1435 units which was confirmed that the earlier reading of 1040 units was correctly noted and the October 2014 A/C bill was raised for 791 units covering two billing cycles i.e. Sept. and October 2014 accounts and the October 2014 bill was tendered at appropriate tariff slab after pro rating the consumption over a two months’ period.

Fact remains that the bills were tendered on the basis of actual meter reading every month and the March 2015 A/C bill was tendered on estimation which was subsequently regularized when actual meter reading was obtained in April 2015 A/C.In the above circumstances, ops submitted that the present complaint is baseless and complainant with an ulterior motive distorted and misrepresented the facts to mislead this Forum.Ops also submitted that there was no deficiency and negligence in service on the part of the ops and the present complaint is absolutely wrong and complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.So, the complaint should be dismissed.

Decision with reasons

          Complainant by filing this complaint submitted that complainant enjoying the facility of the electricity of the CESC Ltd. who is service provider of the complainant and complainant usually used to consume pay of Rs. 300 to 400 per month for consumption of electricity.  But the bill for the month of October-2014 for Rs. 6,250/- and November-2014 is highly excessive, exorbitant and in order to prove the veracity of the statement complainant produced last 6 months bill for proving the fact that he used to pay monthly electricity bill within the range of Rs. 300/- to 400/- per month.

          In fact complainant is not able to pay such extra bill as a domestic consumer.  But under compelling circumstances for the fear of disconnection of the electricity by the op CESC Ltd., complainant paid Rs. 1,000/- in the month of November-2014 and Rs. 1,540/- in the month of  January-2015 as per direction of the official of CESC Ltd..  Complainant further paid Rs. 1,260/- in the month of March-2015 in order to get rid of disconnection of the said electricity.

          In the above circumstances, complainant prayed for directing the CESC Ltd. not to disconnect the line and complainant apprehended that the line should be disconnected without deciding the allegation of the complainant.  Though complainant made several letters to the ops complaining about the inflated and exorbitant billing.  But op did not take any step.  In the above circumstances, complainant has prayed for deciding the dispute and to direct the ops to cancel of the said bill and to issue a revised, rectified bill and not to disconnect the electric line.

          On the other hand op has asserted specifically that the meter No. 4922218 was installed on 26.10.2013 and the bills upto August 2014 were raised as per actual meter reading and in August-2014 meter reading was 644 units and in Sept. 2014 the reading of the meter was 1040 units.

          Considering a message was displayed on the face of the bill of Sept. 2014 stating that ‘Meter read but billed on rental due to high advance, will be regularized subsequently’ and the meter reading of October-2014 A/C was 1435 units which was confirmed that the earlier reading of 1040 units was correctly noted and the October 2014 A/C bill was raised for 791 units covering two billing cycles i.e. Sept. and October 2014 accounts and the October 2014 bill was tendered at appropriate tariff slab after pro rating the consumption over a two months’ period and the bills were tendered on the basis of actual meter reading every month save and except the month of March-2015.

          Save and except what are meters of record ops denied all the allegations of the complainant and complainant has suppressed all the entire fact and in the above circumstances the complaint should be dismissed.

          Considering the defence and also the dispute regarding the consumption of units, we find that the said dispute comes under the purview of 26 of the Electricity Act 2003 (amended up to date) and moreover from the bill it is found that complainant has claimed that bill is excessive and his another allegation is that the units are read at higher rate.  Then invariably the complainant in so many bills found that the meter was defective, but his allegation is regarding the consumption units that means there is some defect in the meter.  When that is the fact, then it is clear that this dispute is related to alleged meter regarding and consumption of units and also about the bills.  When that is fact, then as per settled law which is decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the Forum cannot decide the dispute u/s 126 read with Section 36/40 of C.P. Act, when it is a dispute regarding meter and bill and in view of the above circumstances, this complaint is not tenable in the eye of law and at the same time most interesting factor is that complainant has not filed the E-chief, though he got many chances and he and Ld. Lawyers were not present from the date of filing question.  So, the case was closed finally.  But this complaint is not maintainable what they have realized for which it should be dismissed.

          Whatever it may be the main contention is that this complaint was filed by the complainant about allegation of defective meter for which consumption of units are being made at a high rate and the bill is prepared at a high rate.  So, it comes under the purview of 126 of Electricity Act 2003 and for which as per judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in this regard this complaint is not tenable.  But it shall be decided by the Electricity Board as per law.

          Accordingly this complaint fails.

 Hence, it is

ORDERED

          That the complaint be and the same is dismissed on contest without any cost against ops.  But ops are requested to decide the matter by giving a notice to the complainant for deciding the dispute of the complainant as per provision of 126 of Electricity Act 2003.