Judgment & Order dt. 28.04.2017
One and only one electric bill bearing invoice number 444003504390 for Rs. 48524/- with billing date 22/06/2016 is the bone of contention herein and the complainant has come up before this forum with a challenge that the said bill is fictitious, arbitrary and imaginary and that the same be, therefore, cancelled.
The nub of the complainant’s case is that the complainant being a senior citizen had been getting electric supply to his residents through an old conventional meter bearing no. 418847 and also made payment for electrical energy regularly according to the bills submitted by the OP No. 2, i.e., the Station Manager, W.B.S.E.D.C.L, Balurghat. Op No. 1 is Divisional Manager of the aforesaid electricity distribution company. In course of time, the said old meter of the complainant went defective and therefore a new digital meter bearing no. H202197 was placed in place of the old conventional meter of the complainant’s house in the year 2010. Since then, the bills have been given to the complainant by the OPs on the basis of the reading of digital meter converted to the reading of the old conventional meter. There was no problem so far on the part of the complainant in so far as the payment of the electric bills was concerned. But, the problem raised its ugly head only when the OP No 1 slapped a bill, invoice no. 444003504390 as mentioned above, demanding a staggering amount of Rs. 48524/- as charge for consumption of energy for the months of March’16,April’16 and May’16, showing present reading as 17054, previous reading as 11632 and total consumption units as being 5422. According to the complainant, this is a ghost bill; it’s meter reading is arbitrary and imaginary and that is why he has filed the instant case, praying for cancellation of that particular bill, alleging that it is tribute to the deficiency in service on the part of the electricity distribution company, i.e., the OPs. Hence, the case.
The OPs have filed written version of their case wherein it is admitted that the old meter in the complainant’s house was replaced by a new digital meter on 15/06/2010. But, record of consumption of energy in the digital meter was not inserted in database due to huge number of consumers and shortage of stuff. So, bills were raised by old meter up to 03/03/2016 with final reading of 6477 units, having converted reading of digital meter in reading of old meter. There is no error in the disputed bill which, as goes their version, is all correct.
Upon the averment of both the parties, the following issues are formulated for proper adjudication of the matter in dispute.
ISSUES
- Are the OPs guilty of deficiency in service as alleged in the complaint?
- Is the complainant entitled to relief as prayed for and, if so, to what extent?
EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES
The complainant Ranjit Kumar Dey has filed affidavit in chief and has also got himself examined as PW-1. The documents admitted in evidence on his behalf are marked as Exhibit Nos.- 1,2 series,3 and 4 series as detailed in the list of documents kept in the record. On the other hand, no evidence whatsoever has been led on behalf of the contesting OPs.
DECESION WITH REASONS
Issue Nos. 1 & 2:-
Discussions on both the issues are synchronized for the purpose of convenience . It is stated in the written version submitted by the OPs that they could not properly maintain their office record relating to the meter reading for a large numbers of consumers and shortage of stuff. During continuation of hearing in the case, the station manager i.e. the OP No.-2 also remained personally present with their Ld. Lawyer. To his frankness, the OP No.-2 has submitted that the records regarding noting of meter reading are not properly maintained in his office and therefore they have been compelled to evolve a process of converting the reading of the new digital meter into the reading of the old meter for the purpose of preparation of electrical bill. On the other hand, it is submitted by the complainant that he has been paying the electricity bills regularly without having incurred any default in payment of such bill. So, to him, the disputed bill being a subjective reconstruction of the Op No. 2 cannot be made payable by him.
Considered the above submission made by the parties themselves in presence of their Ld. Lawyers. Perused the electricity bills including the disputed bill and the yellow card filed by the complainant. Considered all these.
It is undisputed fact that the new digital meter was installed in the house of the complainant on 15/06/2010. Since then, the recording of the consumption of the electrical energy has been done uninterruptedly day and night till the month of disputed bill, i.e. June’2016 from the month of it’s installation, i.e. June’2010. The total consumption of electricity can be available from the new meter reading in as much as the new meter is admittedly a correct one. The two approaches can be adopted in this case for a logical solution of the matter in dispute. One approach is to quash the disputed bill as it is the whimsical product of OP No. 2 and as it does not owe to any basis for its foundation. At the same time, the repercussion of such cancellation of the disputed bill will be, as it appears to us, not savoury to the society. If the disputed bill is cancelled giving emphasis on the admitted deficiency of OP No 2 in service, the complainant will not be required to pay for the energy consumed by him and in that case he will be blessed by the fortune of unjust enrichment. Law do never tolerate unjust enrichment. So, if we pass any order cancelling the disputed bill in to-to, it will be an illegal step also for encouraging unjust enrichment which is abhorred by law.
Another approach is to distribute the total consumption of energy as recorded in the new digital meter over 6 years more or less equally and applying the respective rates of energy charge year-wise to each part of yearly consumption obtained after distribution as aforesaid , and thereafter to have the total amount so paid by the complainant over 6 years minused from the total demand of price calculated on the basis of year-wise consumption available in the process referred to above. This approach appears to be the best one because here arises no question of unjust enrichment on the part of any one of the parties. Even here arises no question of being prejudiced on the part of any of the parties. This being so, we have inclined to prefer the second approach to the first mentioned approach and accordingly we directed the OP No. 2 to file a calculation sheet, showing distribution of energy and calculation of the price for energy in the aforesaid manner and accordingly the OP No. 2 has filed a calculation sheet which is kept in record. A perusal of the calculation sheet reveals that the claim amount in bill after adjustment of paid amount and tariff benefit is Rs. 29577.51/-. But, the complainant expresses his reluctance to make payment of this amount to the OPs. He wants to pay Rs. 22000/- only in some installments. In the circumstances, we are inclined to adopt an approach between and betwixt and fix the amount at Rs. 25000/- to be paid by the complainant in three equal installments and thus the dispute between the parties over the disputed bill is brought to an end.
In the result, the case succeeds accordingly.
Hence,
ORDERED
That the complaint case be and the same is allowed on contest against the OPs with costs.
The OPs, particularly OP No. 2 are directed to issue an electrical bill to the complainant for the months of March’16,April’16 and May’16 for Rs. 25000/- without adding any other charge thereto within a period of seven days of the passing of this order and in that case the complainant will have to make payment of the amount, that is, Rs. 25000/- in three equal monthly installments the first of which will be paid within 10 days of the receipt of the bill from the OPs. The complainant will also have to pay all the bills received by him subsequent to June’2016 from the OP company along with the payment of first installment out of Rs. 25000/- as mentioned just above. If the payment as ordered herein is made by the complainant, the OP company will not be able to disconnect the electric line to the complainant’s house. The costs of the proceeding is quantified at Rs. 5000/- and the OPs are also directed to make payment of this amount to the complainant within 3 months of this order.
Let a copy of this order be supplied or sent free of cost to the parties concerned.
