- Sri Kanchan Bhowmick,
159B, Nafar Chandra Das Road,
Kolkata-34. _________ Complainant
____Versus____
- M/s The Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Ltd.
CESC House, Kolkata-1.
- District Engineer, M/s CESC Ltd.
(South West Regional Office),
P-18, Taratala Road,
Kolkata-88, P.S. Taratala. __________Opposite Parties
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, Hon’ble President
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.
Smt. Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member
Order No. 14 Dated 07-01-2015.
The case of the complainant in short is that complainant is a consumer of electricity under o.p. being consumer no.13230118166 under meter no.4021115. On and average complainant used to pay electricity bill to o.p. at range of Rs.4000/- to Rs.6000/- per month as per the bill amount claimed by o.ps. Certainly in Dec 2012 o.ps. sent a bill to complainant amounting to Rs.21,190/-. Complainant termed the said bill as a disputed bill and thereafter complainant wrote a letter to o.ps. on 5.2.13 for inspection of the meter and accordingly, on 12.2.13 o.ps. have inspected the meter and changed the said meter in spite of that complainant already paid the disputed bill amounting to Rs.21,190/- for the month as stated above. After being deprived, as stated above, complainant filed the instant case before this Forum for redressal of the disputed bill as stated above amounting to Rs.21,190/-.
O.ps. had entered their appearance in this case by filing w/v. It has been admitted by o.ps. that they have changed the meter which is in dispute upon request of complainant on the date as stated above by complainant hereinabove. Even then o.ps. prayed before this Forum that the instant case is baseless and be dismissed accordingly.
Decision with reasons:
Upon considering the submissions of the parties and on careful scrutiny of the materials on record, we can safely conclude that meter reading of Dec 2012 amounting to Rs.21,190/- is definitely not correct since immediately thereafter o.ps. have changed the meter upon request of complainant. During inspection if o.ps. found the meter in right functioning condition it is obvious that o.ps. would not have been changed the meter. In this context, it also appears from the record that after Dec 2012 i.e. Jan 2013, Feb 2013, March 2013 the consumer / complainant had paid the bill of Rs.5948.34 and Rs.450/- and Rs.3850/- respectively in respect of the consumer of electricity for the aforesaid months. From above statement it is also clear that the bill claimed by o.ps. for Dec 2012 amounting to Rs.,21,190/- is not correct and for which they have changed the meter.
Upon relying upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble National Commission published in 2014 (1) CPR 242 (NC), we are of the view that o.ps. had made deficiency of service being service provider by raising a bill amounting to Rs.21,190/- which does not have any parity of consumption of electricity on and average in the previous months and post months in respect of Dec 2012 by complainant. In view of the above, complainant has proved the case and is entitled to relief.
Hence, ordered,
That the case is allowed on contest against the o.ps. without cost. O.ps. are jointly and/or severally directed to rectify the erratic bill by considering the bill on and average issued by o.ps. to the complainant for previous six months prior to Dec 2012 and are further directed to adjust the excess amount in future bills issued by o.ps. in future six electric bills after passing of this order and are further directed to take due care and caution in respect of such condition. O.ps. are also directed to comply with the order within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
