DEBASIS BHATTACHARYA, PRESIDING MEMBER

          This appeal has arisen out of order dated 15.10.2014 in CC No. 17/2014 before the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Paschim Medinipur (in short, District Forum). By the impugned order, the complaint case has been dismissed. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, the Complainant thereof has preferred this appeal.

          The case of the Complainant is that he is a consumer under the WBSEDCL having domestic service connection no. KL/D/42549  and consumer no. B 305383, which he took in the year 2010. He used to pay bills regularly up to the billing month of October,2013. But, on 24.11.2013, he received a consumption bill for the period August,2013 to October,2013 showing the present reading as 19993 Units, for payment of Rs.52,141/- per month, which is absurd. On 02.01.2014, one staff of the OP No.1 came and did some works in the meter and the four digit meter turned into five digit and the changed meter reading was 20630 Units. As the Complainant was unable to pay the said money, there is a fear of disconnection by the OP WBSEDCL. The Complainant submitted a petition on 07.01.2014 for considering the alleged bill, but no action was taken. But, instead the OP No. 1 threatened him on 13.01.2014 that if the bill is not paid by 27.01.2014, the OP WBSEDCL will make disconnection. Accordingly,  the case.

          On the other hand, the case of the OP, WBSEDCL is that reading of consumption of 19993 Units was taken on 07.11.2013, which was consumed by the Complainant for the period 17.03.2010 to 07.11.2013. The Complainant filed one application before the OP. Accordingly, one inspection was held on 18.12.2013 and meter reading on 20492 was noted. There is no deficiency on the part of the OP in the preparation of the bill. So, the complaint is liable to be rejected.

         It is to be considered if the impugned order suffers from any kind of anomaly so as to make  a dent in the impugned order, or not.

Decision with reasons

         Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has submitted that as per the yellow card of the WBSEDCL, meter reading as on 22.11.2013 was 2054 Units. But, in the bill, it has been shown to be 17882 units for an amount of Rs.1, 54,624/-. Therefore, he raised an objection by a petition dated 07.01.2014, and an enquiry was allegedly made by the WSBEDCL finding correctness of the meter. Thereafter, the case has been made by the Complainant. There has been discrepancy in between yellow card in which the reading was taken as 2054 units as on 21.11.2013, whereas in the disputed bill it was mentioned that the billing date is 16.11.2013 of 17992 Units. There should have been average billing on consumption till enquiry in the matter ends. So, the present bill is inapplicable.

         Ld. Advocate for the Respondent submits that the inspection was made on 18. 12.2013 in presence of the Complainant and the meter was found to be ok. It was never alleged by the Complainant in his petition of complaint that the meter is defective.

         No deficiency in service is proved against the OPs. It is simply a billing dispute, which should have gone to the CGRO. It has been correctly reflected in the impugned order that the Complainant consumed electricity through the unchecked meter till 02.01.2014. However, the proper reading was noted by the man of the WBSEDCL on checking to be 020630 Units as on 02.01.2014. Thus, the impugned order suffers no kind of anomaly. As such, the impugned order is affirmed. Appeal is dismissed.