UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA, MEMBER 

          This Appeal u/s 15 of the C.P. Act, 1986 was filed by the Appellant/OP challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 22.01.2015 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Dakshin Dinajpur , in Consumer Complaint No. 17 of 2014 allowing the complaint on contest against the OPs without cost.

          The OPs were directed jointly severally to prepare and sent the rectified bills in the name of the Respondents/Complainants in place of the impugned bill dated 01.02.2014 on the basis of the actual consumption of electricity by the Consumers during the relevant period , that is , from the period from 04.04.2013 to 03.01.2014 , within 30 days from the date of the impugned order.

          The OPs were further directed jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/- only as compensation to the Complainants @ Rs. 5,000/- each issuing three separate A/C payee cheques in their names within the same period of 30 days .

          The Respondents/Complainants, as directed, were to deposit @ Rs. 1,000/- each in the State Consumer Welfare Fund payable at PNB , Balurghat, out of the said compensation amounts within 7 days from the date of receipt of the cheques.

          The Appeal was heard ex parte against the Respondents / Complainants .

          The Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant/OP was very critical about the impugned judgment and order for its being allegedly arbitrary in nature. As submitted, the Ld. District Forum had directed the Appellant/OP to allow the Respondents/Complainants payment of bills for the subject period, prepared on the basis of actual consumption when the Appellant/OP, in fact , had generated the subject bill absolutely on the basis of the actual consumption and no contradictory document could be adduced by the Respondents/Complainants to establish the so called arbitrariness of the Appellant/OP in disputed bill .

          The Ld. Advocate went on to submit that the Respondents / Complainants, being the legal heirs of the deceased consumer , should have had the service connection changed in their names which they did not do. As contended, since the Appellant/OP, as the service provider, had entered into an agreement with the deceased consumer only, the Respondents / Complainants with the name of the erstwhile consumer remaining unchanged, had no authority to claim themselves as the consumers of the Appellant/OP.

          The Ld. Advocate concluded with the submission that the impugned judgment and order, since passed by the Ld. District Forum without application of mind, should be set aside and the prayer of the instant Appeal should be allowed.

          Perused the papers on record. The Respondents /Complainants herein are the legal heirs of the erstwhile consumer , now deceased and have been enjoying the electricity connection since the date of death of their predecessor as his legal heirs without the name of the deceased being substituted . It further appears that the Respondents /Complainants have regularly paid the electricity consumption bills for years without interception till the instant dispute has arisen. It seems that the Appellants /OP has disowned the Respondents/Complainants as its consumer because of their names being not incorporated as substitutions of their deceased predecessors, the erstwhile consumer. Since , the Respondents/Complainants received services from the Appellant/OP on payment of consumption charges of electricity till the initiation of the instant dispute , a clear service receiver and service giver relationship has been established between them . We are , therefore, inclined not to disregard their right as consumer subject to observance of mere technicalities and accordingly , are in agreement with the finding of the impugned order so far as the admittance of the Respondents / Complainants ‘  identity as consumer is concerned.

          The instant dispute appears to be related to the alleged overbilling for a period of more of less 9 months w.e.f. 04.04.2013 to 03. 01. 2014 which reveals a total consumption of 5266 units and which the Respondents / Complainants claimed to be an exaggerated reading as they , as alleged , have never consumed beyond 450 units for consecutive three months . A consumption of electricity of 5266 units for 9 months means and average consumption of 585 units per months. In the present era where sophisticated electronic and electrical gazettes have become the parts of daily life, the increase of unit consumption does not appear to be improbable.  

          The Ld. District Forum, in his impugned order indicated that the old meter at the time of replacement by the new one had recorded a reading of 2659 units and suspected that the said closure reading of the old and replaced meter was wrongly recorded as 10, 637 units  in the subject bill .

          It was, however, not made clear by the Respondents/Complainants or the Ld. District Forum in its impugned order as to whether there was at all any other replacement of the meter  before. Since, it is not mentioned either in the petition or in the impugned order, we may conclude that their has been no other replacement. The date of death of the deceased consumer, as recorded in the complainant at para-1 , was 23.01.2004 and the instant replacement of the old meter was done on 19.08.2013 . Presumably, the old meter was installed long before the death of the erstwhile consumer, which means, much before 10 years. The old meter’s recording of only 2659 units at the time replacement seems to be absurd in the given circumstances. So, the Appellant/OP’s stand point that the bill was prepared on the basis of actual consumption appears to be having the ingredients of truth and that impression became firmer by willful absence of the Respondents/Complainants from the instant hearing.

          Further, we fail to understand how the Ld. District Forum passed an order of payment of compensation to three complainants, being the members of the same family and enjoying electricity connection against single consumer ID in three equal shares.

          Above being the circumstances, we are of the opinion that there was material irregularity in passing the impugned order by the Ld. District Forum and are constrained to revise the impugned order accordingly. Hence,

                                      Ordered

          That the Appeal be and the same is allowed in part. The Appellant/OP is directed to take necessary action to ensure that the service connection is transferred in the name of the Respondent /Complainant No.1 within 45 days.

          The Respondents/Complainants are directed to pay the entire bill amount to the Appellant/OP within 45 days; failing which simple interest @ 9% p.a. shall accrue on the billed amount from the date of default till the amount is fully realized. The impugned order stands modified accordingly. No order as to costs.