Ld Advocates are present. Judgement is delivered in open commission in 5 pages 3 separate sheet of paper.
BY - SRI ASISH DEB, PRESIDENT
Brief facts of the complainant’s case are that the Complainant is a law abiding citizen of India residing at the address mentioned in the cause title.The Complainant was having a domestic electric bearing Consumer Id 2222048/43, Meter no. H269230 and the complainant has been using the connection for domestic purpose and is paying all the electricity consumption bills as and when received by the Complainant and nothing on account of consumption charges is due towards the Complainant. As per sanctioned load of the aforesaid meter being no. H269230 in the name of complainant, the average consumption was always between 38 units to maximum 240 units through out the year and accordingly complainant has paid all bills up to January 2022. Subsequently Complainant all of a sudden received one factually wrong and highly inflated electricity bill dated 10-02-2022 for the period of February’ 2022 to April’ 2022 issued by the opposite parties amount of Rs.13471/- prepared on the basis of highly excessive average consumption of 1558 units. The average chargeis totally against the instruction of the Board. The Complainant approached the respondent to correct the bill and prepare the same on the basis of average consumption of the corresponding period of previous year. The opposite party promised to correct the bill and withdraw the amount of the bill prepared on the basis of highly excessive average consumption. Complainant again visited the office of the opposite party to correct the bill but he has to return with the assurance. However, the Complainant was directed to deposit Rs. 4584/- out of the amount of the previous bill. Complainant on 21-02-2022, again approached the opposite party and requested to withdraw the illegal and unlawful charges and revised the same on the basis of average consumption of the corresponding period of previous year or on the basis of sanctioned load as per instructions of the Board but the opposite party flatly refused to do so and threatened to disconnect the connection of theComplainant, if the Complainant failed to pay the total amount which amounts to clear cut deficiency in service and unfair Trade practice on the part of the opposite party. The Complainants states that the act and conduct of the opposite party are completely arbitrary, unscientific, illegal, baseless, malafide with intention to harass the complainant which causes a severe mental threat to the complainants to live a peace full life at his own accord. The Complainant states that the above mentioned dispute clearly states that there was negligence on the part of the opposite party and the said opposite party is running an Unfair Trade Practice in order to dupe the hard earned money of the complainant. The opposite party has miserably failed in providing right and proper service thereby causing deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. In the above premises, opposite party is required to be directed to withdraw the factually wrong and illegal bill issued on 10-02-2022 amounting Rs.13471/- for the period of February’ 2022 to April’ 2022 prepared on the basis of huge average consumption of 1558 units and to revise the above bill dated 10-02-2022 on the basis of average consumption of the corresponding period of previous year or on the basis of sanctioned load, during the period the meter remained defective. Complainant is entitled to get order or orders as prayed for otherwise complainant suffer irreparable losses and injuries. The instant Complaint is filed within the prescribed time period in terms of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act and subsequent direction of the Apex Court. The cause of action of the instant complaint arose at village Ajrah Champi under P.S. Mahishadal, District Purba Medinipur within this jurisdiction on 10.02.2022 upon received factually wrong and highly inflated electricity bill from the opposite party and subsequently on 21.02.2022 when the opposite party refused to revise the bill dated 10.02.2022 on the basis of average consumption of the correspondingperiod of previous year or on the basis of sanctioned load as per instructions of the Board. The Complainant makes payment of the requisite Court Fees. The Complaint is made bona fide and for ends of justice. There is no suit pending nor has been decided on the same subject matter between the parties by any competent court of law. In the aforesaid circumstances, Complainant most humbly Pray for directing the op to withdraw the alleged factually wrong and illegal bill issued on 10.02.2022 amounting Rs.13471/- for the period of February’ 2022 to April’ 2022 prepared on the basis of huge average consumption of 1558 units and to revise the above bill dated 10.02.2022 on the basis of average consumption of the corresponding period of previous year or on the basis of sanctioned load, during the period the meter remained defective, direct the opposite party to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation to the appellant on account of unfair trade practice, deficiency in service, mental tension and harassment and Rs.5000/- as litigations expenses for the and mental harassment and agony, direct the opposite parties to pay the costs of litigation, and such other/further order/orders in favour of complainants as the commission may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience. .
The op has contested the case by filing written version thereof stating inter alia that the statements of the complaint which are not specifically denied shall not be deemed to be admission of this Opposite Party. The prayers of the complainant as stated are false, frivolous, baseless, illegal and as such the complainant is not entitled to have the relief as prayed for. The Complainant Smt. Kuhu Tripathi (Nanda) is an existing consumer bearing Co Id- 222204843 and having Meter NO. H26923016. The 7 segment display of the meter through which consumer was fed power was a bit hazy for which the consumer was billed on average basis as per previous consumption from August 2019 till Nov 2021. For better power supply and voltage improvement of said meter few system improvement works were carried out. Thereafter due to better voltage availability the meter display became prominent and on 10.02.2022 the meter reading noted through spot billing by reader became visible to a considerable extent and the reading noted was 9035 kwh. On 05.04.2022 the complainant lodged a written complaint about the last raised bill of 1558 units (Assumption Reading o 04.011.2021 -7477 Kwh and actual reading on 10.02.2022 – 9035 Kwh i.e. the difference of 9035-7477 = 1558 Kwh units). Immediately for checking the meter performance another meter was installed in series with the said meter whose details along with reading are noted in tabulated manner. From the above observation it is understood that the consumer’s average consumption has gone up in the last 2 years but due to technical problem the meter reading wasn’t prominent for which as per prevailing norms of WBERC Regulation 55 Sec 3.6.1 the billing was done judiciously every quarter. Thus, it can be clearly seen that the reading which is being seen on 10.02.2022 is the actual reading and it is being consumed by the said consumer. In no way any case of harassment or unfair trade practice arises as noted by the complainant that she is being threatened, it’s just a way to malign licensee and to put pressure on WBSEDCL to deprive claiming of legitimate bill consumed by the complainant. The observed max load was found to be 1.27 KW whereas the contractual demand i.e. the sanctioned load of the consumer is 0.52KVA i.e. 0.442 KW which is also another point which directly contradicts the statement she made in Paragraph No.3 of his complaint. In the above detailed report as per actual meter reading the bill was raised on 23.04.2019 when the reading was seen as 6412 Kwh and on 10.02.2022 when the reading was observed to be 9035 Kwh. In between the entire consumption was raised on average basis based on previous consumption which though increased in real when opposite party checked the maximum demand and the reading too. This opposite party states that the complainant has no cause of action to institute the instant case against this Opposite Party. The claim of complainant in this case is totally false, frivolous, baseless, incorrect, and unwarranted in law as such the complainant is not entitled to have the relief as prayed for. Only to harass this opposite party complainant have filed the instant case with false pretext.
Upon reading the pleadings of both parties following points for determination are framed.
Points for determination are:
- Is the case maintainable in its present form and in law?
2. Is the Complainant entitled to get the relief(s) as sought for?
Decision with reasons
Both the points, being inter related to each other, are taken up together for discussion forthe sake of brevity and convenience.
We have carefully perused and assessed the complaint supported by affidavit of the complainant, written version filed by op, evidence of both parties and other documents. We have anxiously considered the arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsel of rival parties.
Having regards had to the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence on record, it is evident that the complainant being a consumer of domestic electricity has alleged deficiency in service against the op ; the bundle of facts indicate that this case is maintainable in its present form and in law.
On scanning and evaluation of the evidence, it appears that the complainant has alleged on oath that as per sanctioned load of the aforesaid meter being no. H269230 is in the name of the complainant, the average consumption was always between 38 units to maximum 240 units through out the year and accordingly complainant has paid all bills up to January 2022. Subsequently Complainant all of a sudden received one factually wrong and highly inflated electricity bill dated 10-02-2022 for the period of February’ 2022 to April’ 2022 issued by the opposite parties amount of Rs.13471/- prepared on the basis of highly excessive average consumption of 1558 units. The average chargeis totally against the instruction of the Board. The Complainant approached the respondent to correct the bill and prepare the same on the basis of average consumption of the corresponding period of previous year. The opposite party promised to correct the bill and withdraw the amount of the bill prepared on the basis of highly excessive average consumption. Complainant again visited the office of the opposite party to correct the bill but he has to return with the assurance. However, the Complainant was directed to deposit Rs. 4584/- out of the amount of the previous bill. The Complainant on 21-02-2022, again approached the opposite party and requested to withdraw the illegal and unlawful charges and revised the same on the basis of average consumption of the corresponding period of previous year or on the basis of sanctioned load as per instructions of the Board but the opposite party flatly refused to do so and threatened to disconnect the connection of theComplainant, if the Complainant failed to pay the total amount which amounts to clear cut deficiency in service and unfair Trade practice on the part of the opposite party.
On the other hand the op has answered to the said grievances stating on affidavit thatthe Complainant Smt. Kuhu Tripathi (Nanda) is an existing consumer bearing Co Id- 222204843 and having Meter NO. H26923016. The 7 segment display of the meter through which consumer was fed power was a bit hazy for which the consumer was billed on average basis as per previous consumption from August 2019 till Nov 2021. For better power supply and voltage improvement of said meter few system improvement works were carried out. Thereafter due to better voltage availability the meter display became prominent and on 10.02.2022 the meter reading noted through spot billing by reader became visible to a considerable extent and the reading noted was 9035 kwh. On 05.04.2022 the complainant lodged a written complaint about the last raised bill of 1558 units (Assumption Reading o 04.011.2021 -7477 Kwh and actual reading on 10.02.2022 – 9035 Kwh i.e. the difference of 9035-7477 = 1558 Kwh units). Immediately for checking the meter performance another meter was installed in series with the said meter whose details along with reading are noted in tabulated manner. From the above observation it is understood that the consumer’s average consumption has gone up in the last 2 years but due to technical problem the meter reading wasn’t prominent for which as per prevailing norms of WBERC Regulation 55 Sec 3.6.1 the billing was done judiciously every quarter. Thus, it can be clearly seen that the reading which was seen on 10.02.2022 was the actual reading .
In the above facts and circumstances, we have examined and calculated the Yellow Card reading provided by the complainant in the context of the previous bills; we have not found any glaring irregularity in the process of raising the impugned bill. The bill is not inflated; it was done as per rules and norms of the WBERC Regulation 55 Sec 3.6.1.It is also evident that the op has entertained the grievances of the complainant and it conducted a scientific enquiry to that effect to ascertain as to whether there is substance of the complaint or not. It conducted the enquiry by placing another meter in series side by side with the challenged meter . The meter was found running properly. A data along with reading chart has been filed. The defense taken by op are well founded with supported documents. It appears that complainant has averred a misconceived facts in this complaint. We do not find any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the op as alleged by the complainant.
Resultantly, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief in this case.
Thus, the points for determination are disposed of.
The case does not succeed.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
That CC/26 of 2022 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the op.
No order as to costs is passed.
Let a copy of the judgment be supplied to the complainant and the op free of cost.
