C.F. CASE No. : CC/10/73
COMPLAINANT : Anjali Tikadar,
W/o Nikhil Ranjan Tikadar
Vill. Uttar Lalpur, P.O. Chakdaha,
P.S. Chakdaha, Dist. Nadia
OPPOSITE PARTY/OP : Station Manager,
Chakdaha East Gr. E/Supply,
W.B.S.E.D.C.L.,
Pumlia, P.O. & P.S. Chakdaha
Dist. Nadia
PRESENT : SHRI KANAILAL CHAKRABORTY PRESIDENT
: SHRI SHYAMLAL SUKUL MEMBER
DATE OF DELIVERY
OF JUDGMENT : 25th January, 2011
: J U D G M E N T :
In brief, the case of the complainant is that she is a consumer under the OP bearing electric connection No. 30567 and consumer No. A – 363774. She has an electric connection at her house and the OP supplied her bill which she paid regularly. It is her further case that the bill supplied by the OP for the period from 15.02.08 to 11.04.08 was an excessive one at which she raised objection to the OP, but no action was taken on his part. Again the bill for the period from Nov, 2008 to Jan, 2009 was an excessive one against which she raised objection, though she paid the bill amount. Thereafter, on 03.02.09 the OP installed a new meter at her residence against the old one. In spite of that, the bill for the month of February to April, 10 was sent with an amount of Rs. 2767/-. Regarding this, she filed a written application to the OP on 21.06.10 asking to examine her meter, but no step was taken by the OP. So having no other alternative she has filed this case praying for the reliefs as stated in the petition of complaint.
OP has contested this case by filing a written version, inter alia, stating that the complainant has no cause of action to file this case. It is his submission that as per demand of the complainant the OP replaced the electric meter on 03.02.09. It is his submission also that on physical inspection on 24.09.10 by the OP, it is available that the complainant enjoys 1.686 KW load as there are freeze, colour TV, ceiling fan, tube light, pump, table fan etc. at her house. So considering the load the bill was prepared after the meter reading. So no question of preparing any excessive bill on the side of the OP does arise. The meter consumption of the complainant is also O.K. in comparison to the load pattern. Besides this, the complainant has extended her load capacity without giving any intimation to this OP which is a violation of the contract. Therefore, the complainant’s case has no merit and the same is liable to be dismissed against him.
POINTS FOR DECISION
Point No.1: Has the complainant any cause of action to file this case?
Point No.2: Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Both the points are taken up together for discussion as they are interrelated and for the sake of convenience.
On a careful perusal of the petition of the complaint along with the annexed documents and the oral evidences laid by the complainant and the written version filed by the OP and also after hearing the arguments advanced by the ld. lawyers of the parties it is available on record that admittedly the complainant has one electric connection under the OP bearing connection No. 30567. The complainant’s main allegation is that her meter was defective due to which an excessive bill was sent by the OP as a result of which she had to suffer a financial loss. It is available on record that in the petition of complaint that up to 11.04.08 all the bill amounts were duly paid by her and on 03.02.09 at her demand the OP replaced a new meter at her premises in place of the old one. Her specific allegation is that the bill amount for the month of Feb, 10 to April, 2010 amounting to Rs. 2767/- is an excessive one for which she filed an application with a request to check her new meter. That bill amount was not paid by her. From the written version we find that the total load enjoyed by the complainant is 1257 units for the 3 months. Considering the load the bill amount was not excessive. Admittedly, the complainant submitted a letter to the OP on 15.10.09 with a request to check her new meter on the ground that it was defective. The OP did not make any arrangement to check the new meter though the OP demands bill as per the load estimated by him which he holds that the complainant enjoys 1.686KW. From the reply of interrogatories filed by the complainant, we find in her house she uses 2 tube lights, 2 PL lamps, 3 fans, one pump machine, one TV, one freeze and one table fan which is the contention of the OP also. Now the question is whether the claim amount by the complainant for the period from Feb, 10 to April, 10 is excessive or not. The complainant has filed a copy of the yellow card, but in this card no reading is mentioned for the above said period. At the prayer of the complainant OP replaced a new meter at her premises on 03.02.09. From the copy of the bill we find that for the period of Feb, 10 to April, 10 the amount charged by the OP is Rs. 2767/-, whereas for the period from Nov, 08 to Jan, 09 the bill amount was Rs. 839/-. The bill amount for the month Nov, 07 to Jan, 08 was Rs. 1535/- and for the period from Aug, 07 to Oct, 08 the amount was Rs. 441/-. Comparing all these bills it is available that the disputed bill amount for the month of Feb, 10 to April, 10 is an excessive one undoubtedly. The OP did not check the meter installed at the house of the complainant though the complainant filed a written application to him with a request to check the meter. So considering all these we hold that it is the duty of the OP to check the meter when a consumer raised objection against the bill, but the OP has not done this. This is a deficiency in service on his part no doubt.
In view of the above discussions, our considered view is that the complainant has become able to prove her case and she is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for. In result the case succeeds.
Hence,
Ordered,
That the case, CC/10/73 be and the same is decreed on contest against the OP. The OP is directed to check the meter of the complainant and issue a fresh bill for the period from Feb, 10 to April, 10 on the basis of the meter reading and units enjoyed by the complainant in the previous bills filed by her within the period of one month since this date. The complainant is entitled to get the Rs. 3,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service on the part of the OP + litigation cost of Rs. 1,000/-. The complainant is also directed to pay the revised bill within 15 days after the receipt of the same from the OP. The OP is also directed to pay the decretal amount within a period of one month since this date of passing this judgment, in default, the decretal amount will carry interest @ 10% per annum since this date till the date of realization of the full amount.
Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.
