Jharkhand

Bokaro

CC/17/55

Vimal Prasad Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Excutive Enginear, Electricity Dept. - Opp.Party(s)

Ram Babu Sharma

03 Apr 2019

ORDER

Complainant Vimal Prasad Sharma filed this case for an order for direction to O.P. pay the extra payment of Rs. 16,381/- of electrical bill be paid or adjusted in the future bills and to change the electric meter by new meter further compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and litigation cost Rs. 10,000/- be directed to be paid by O.P.

2          The case of the complainant is that he is a retired officer and lived on pension of Rs. 8,000/- per month. He is consumer of O.P. having Consumer No. 0101/10661 and paying bills regularly. Complainant got average bill of Rs. 200/- per month.

            Complainant paid Rs. 5,860/- the bill for August 2016 but when he checked the meter he found the reading was 2175 unit of consumption. In this way, O.P. has charged, showing wrong meter reading up to August 2016 for 3685 unit of consumption and in this way O.P. had charged Rs. 9581/- extra @ 2.60/- per unit.   

            Complainant made a verbal complaint to the meter Reeder Abhay Kumar Singh and Rakesh Bhadauriya who told “ Your meter reading automatically come to Zero” after showing 2500 unit. Complainant suspected some foul disturbance of meter by them. The told that the meter is now faulty and required to be changed. They told further if the complainant did not change the meter, then it would be declared defective meter and you have to pay bill of Rs. 1,000/- per month. For this O.P. sent September 2016’s bill of Rs. 1,000/-.

            It s alleged that since September 2016 average bill was raised of Rs. 1,000/- per month since August 2016 to February 2017 up to Rs. 6725/- which was paid by the Complainant on 15-07-2017 by paying Rs. 6,000/- and thereafter no bill was sent after February 2017.

            Hence this case is filed.

3          Complainant filed bills Anx-1,2,3 and a letter Anx- 4,5 in support.

4.        O.P. No. 1 and 2 Executive Electrical Engineer and Assistant Engineer Chas appeared and filed written statement. It is submitted that there is no deficiency on the part of O.P.

            It is further submitted that having receipt of the Complainant, the O.P. No.2 intimated the complainant to replace the meter for correct meter reading but the Complainant refused to allow for replacement. Hence there is no lapse on the part of the O.P. and prayed to drop the case.

FINDINGS

5          We perused the record and the documents filed. We hold that Complainant is a consumer which is not denied.

6          As regarding the dispute of raising bills on average basis of Rs. 1000/- per month without going to see the previous consumption of bill of Rs. 200/- per months, it is wrong done by the O.P.s. It is the duty of O.P. to inform in writing for replacement of meter which is defective. O.P. has not mentioned in W.s. on which day the O.P.s went to replace the defective meter, this is not justified by O.P. by any documents. Therefore, O.P. is liable for deficiency in service.

7          Accordingly we allow the prayer and O.P. is directed to replace the defective meter at once and adjust the excess bill raised on average basis of Rs. 200/- per month since August 2016 onwards till the current bill raised in future and adjust the excess amount which has already been paid by the complainant from August 2016 onwards.

            O.P. is further directed to pay Rs. 3000/- as Compensation to the Complainant and litigation cost of Rs. 1000/-.

            The order must be complied within 60 days of this order.