DEBASIS BHATTACHARYA, PRESIDING MEMBER   

Date : 23.5.2016

            Being Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order dated 23.07.2014 passed by the Ld Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Purulia (in short, District Forum) in CC NO.25/2013, the OPs thereof have preferred this appeal. By the impugned order, the Ld District Forum has allowed the case.

             The case of the Complainant, in a nutshell, is that he is a consumer of WBSEDCL under Purulia Customer Care Centre having Electricity Service Connection No.15670 (Domestic), Consumption ID No.242027418. On 22.03.2013, the Meter Reader of the OP came to his house for taking the reading for the quarter January 13 to March, 2013, and found that the Meter  is stopped. However, the OP raised electric bill dated 02.03.2013 for the said quarter without making any endorsement that the meter is stopped, which amount the Complainant duly paid. He lodged a written complaint on 24.06.2013 to the OP No.1 requesting him to replace the meter by a defect free meter, but to no effect. Thereafter, he received the energy bill dated 20.07.2013 for the period 22.03.2013  to 19.07.2013 for Rs.11,158.00 claiming energy consumption of  1560 units, which is on the basis of imaginary reading /consumption of energy. This amount is highly excessive and without any legal basis. As the due date of payment of the first instalment was on 30.07.2013, the Complainant by a letter dated 01.08.2013 requested the OP No.1 to raise a revised bill in place of the bill dated 20.07.2013 and to replace the defective meter within 10 days. The OP No.1 changed the meter on 09.08.2013, but no revised bill was issued, on the basis of average consumption during the quarter April to June of the years 2009, 2010 and 2011 or average consumption of preceding six months from the date of detection of the defect. As such, the OP NO.1 intentionally did not take any steps to resolve the dispute arising out of the bill dated 20.07.2013. Accordingly, the case.

              On the other hand, the case of the OPs while denying the claims and contentions of the Complainant is that the case is not maintainable, and the Complainant should have gone to CGRO, Purulia for disposing his grievance. Accordingly, the case be dismissed.

               It is to be considered if the impugned order suffers from any kind of irregularity or illegality so as to make an intervention in this appeal.

Decision with reasons

                Respondent does not appear in this appeal. So, the appeal is heard ex parte against him.

                Ld Advocate for Appellant has submitted that it is a billing dispute, and the meter of the Complainant has been changed. So, it is reasonable for the Complainant to move the CGRO concerned regarding the disputed bill and not the Ld.  District Forum.

               Undisputably, earlier meter of the Complainant was defective and it is changed. But, no revised bill was prepared on the basis of concerned previous average consumption of energy. It is a genuine cause of grievance of the Complainant against the OPs. The impugned order is in this respect reflects the facts and circumstances of the case. There is nothing to make any dent in the four corners of the impugned order.  It is thus affirmed. So, the appeal stands dismissed.