This is a case for Electricity re-connection, Corrected Electric bill and compensation.
Complainant case briefly stated is that the complainant is the consumer under the Op. His electric connection no. is 5453. The OP is charging more by sending electricity bill that the electricity consumed by the complainant. So the complainant filed this case on 07.03.2005. The complainant filed and petition on 23.04.2005 wherein it has been stated that the op has disconnected his electric line on 07.04.2005 as he filed the instant case against the OP.
Under the circumstances the complainant prayed for re connection of electric line. Corrected bill as per under reading and compensation Rs.20,000/-
The OP contested the case by filing a written statement wherein he denied the material allegation of the case and also stated that the case is not maintainable and barred under electricity Act. He further submitted that the link was raised 100 unit per month due to meter defects. The said after few months it seems to the defect against and meter reading was 00393 on 7.12.2004 and recorded in the yellow card of the consumer and observed that the wheel of the meter was not moving through the light and fan switches are on. The meter reader went the same premises on 09.12.2004 and notice the same reading as 00393. Then the meter reader recorded the connected load in the yellow card. He also noted the yellow card as a stop. Considering the physical load average bill has been claimed in respect of the same consumer as per general condition of supply. The service connection of the said consumer has been disconnected on 07.04.2005 due to non-payment of energy bill for the period 12/2004 to 3/2005. So the op prays for dismissal of the case with costs.
Points for decision.
- Is the case maintainable?
- Was the electric meter stopped as claimed by the O.P.?
- Has the electric charge wrongly calculated?
- Is the complainant default in electric dues?
- Is the notice properly served upon the complainant?
- Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the Op?
- Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the OP?
- Is what the relief, if any, the complainant is entitled to?
Decession
Points no 2 to 5 All three points are taken up together for consideration as they are into linked. It is the case of the complainant that the Electric Bills issued to him by the OP are not according to the enter meter reading The OP submits that as was stopped average bill has been submitted. So it is admitted by the op that the bills is not according to the meter reading. There is no dispute as regards consumer no or on point of consumer. Admittedly we can say that the complainant is the consumer under the OP. The document i.e electric bills Ext 1,2,3,2 & 4 clearly show that the bills are not according to the reading. It is the case of the OP that as the meter was stopped so average bill was given. The set up I the yellow card is stated by the OP dt. 7.12.2004 & 09.12.2004- Ext. 5 show that the reading in both the days on the same. But there after the noticed in the yellow card dt. 08.03.2005 in the Ext 5 delay proves that the meter was running was the reading was 00528 so the submission by the op that the meter was stopped seems is not believable. Further the OP stated in the written statement that the meter recorder noted in the yellow card as stopped that do not filed any note there in the yellow card Ext 5. Under the circumstances we are not in a position to believe that the meter was stopped. Further there is not any steps taken by the Op to correct the meter in the meter id stopped. Further it is admitted by the Op average bill was given. When we say that the meter was running then the average bill is not proper. More over as per decision reported in (i) 2002 CPJ 16 the average bill it to the perused on the basis of last and year reading. But in the instant case that has not been done. The last case year amounts w 117 unit (approx.) It is admitted by the complainant that he has not paid the last distributed bill for which the line has been disconnected. The disconnection of the line for non-payment of bill is no hence, but prior that was must. In the instant case there is no indication of notice of disconnecting in the last bill Ext 4 There is also no notice served upon the complainant by the OP for disconnection which is augmenter. Considering we can say that the Op has not served any notice of disconnection. This is no doubt a fault on the part of the Op. Thus these points are disposed of accordingly.
Points NO. 6-821:- all these points are taken up together for consideration on they are interlinked. Considering the foregoing discussion and materials and record. We are of opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of the Op and the complainant is entitled to have fresh bill as per actual meter reading on the meter in running as well as connection of electric line without reconnection charge. Thus the case is maintainable and disposed of accordingly.
Hence Order
That the case and the same is allowed and contest against the OP. The OP is directed to issue fresh b ill to the complainant as per present reading in the meter by 15 days from this day and complainant is directed to pay the same by seven days after receiving the fresh bill as per order. The OP is further directed the reconnection the electric line by the day of payment without any re connection change. If excess payment in the day by the complainant then that would by argument with the subsequent bills. The complainant is also entitled where have compensation Rs.10.000/- from the OP for such harassment. The OP is directed the pay same by one month from this date failing up which the complainant is at lively execute the and after expiry of the period mentioned above.
The compensation and mentioned above by also recovered by the OP from the salary of the person/employee who is fault.
