Fact of the case of the Complainant in short is that the Complainant is a customer under the O.P. / Indas Group Electricity Supply having Consumer no.I621318 and a Husking machine was being operated by the electric motor and said Husking mill business was being done by the Complainant to maintain himself as well as his family members and this Complainant was paying electric bill regularly on the basis of meter reading.

On May – 2012 this Complainant noticed that the electric meter of his husking mill was running fast and recording of consumption of electricity was not correctly recorded.  So, he informed this matter to the office of the O.P. ; but O.P. did not pay any heeds about it.

On 31-05-2014 staff of the O.P. took meter reading of the said defective meter and prepared a bill showing consumption of 2048 units asking this Complainant to pay the amount of bill by 25-06-2012 and subsequently on 14-06-2012 O.P. disconnected the electricity of the case service connection.

Thereafter, this O.P. also sent electric bill showing consumption of 4266 units in the month of July – 2012.  The bills prepared in the month of June – 2012 and July – 2012 on the basis of defective electric meter reading was wrong, baseless and fictitious.  So, this Complainant has filed this case and prayed for making direction upon the O.P. to prepare a fresh bill for the month of June – 2012 and July – 2012 and to declare the said bills are fictitious and baseless / exaggerated  / excessive, etc.

Complainant also made further prayer to direct O.P. to refund the interest of security

money deposited by this Complainant in his office.

Complainant also made further prayer to direct O.P. to refund the interest of security money deposited by this Complainant in his office.

Complainant has also made further prayer to pay compensation of Rs.96,000/- for disconnection of the electricity wrongfully.

This case is being contested by the O.P. denying all allegations as made in this petition of complaint contending inter alia that the Complainant is not maintainable and same is barred by limitation as per section 24A of the C.P. Act.

The bills in questions were prepared according to the meter reading correctly.  So, the allegation as made by the Complainant is vague and malafide.  So, this complaint is liable to be dismissed.

In this case the following documents have been marked as exhibit for the Complainant.

1)  Exhibit – 1 is Quotation.

2)  Exhibit – 2 series are receipts.

3)  Exhibit – 3 series are electric bills.

4)  Exhibit – 4 is letter given by Complainant to O.P.

                                                                    Points for determinations.

1)  Is the case maintainable ?

2)  Is the case barred by limitation ?

3)  Whether the impugned bills for the month of June and July – 2012 challenged in this case

      are inflated and arbitrary / exaggerated / excessive.

4)  Whether the Complainant is entitled to any relief as prayed for.

                                                              Decision with reasons.

We have carefully heard the submissions made by the Ld. Advocate for the both sides.

Perused the written argument, petition of complaint, W.V. and the documents exhibited in this case.

It appears that it is undisputed that the Complainant was operating a husking machin

 after getting electric connection from the O.P. / WBSEDCL having Consumer no.I621318.  The dispute arose when the Complainant noticed that his electric meter was running fast and was not recording consumption correctly.  So, he reported this matter to O.P. but O.P. did not take any steps and sent bill exhibit – 3(J) showing consumption of 2084 units in the month of May – 2012 and sent bill dated 13-06-2012 asking this Complainant to pay Rs.14,525/- by 25-06-2012.  Thereafter, this O.P. also sent another bill showing consumption of electricity in the month of June – 2012 to the extent of 4266 units vide bill dated 24-07-2012 asking Complainant to pay Rs.33,104/- by 06-08-2012 exhibit – 3(K).  Thereafter, this Complainant made request by letter Exhibit - 4 to the O.P. to rectify the electric bills sent for the month of June – 2012 to July - 2012.  Thereafter, his service connection has been disconnected for non-payment of bill.

Complainant has filed several bills Exhibit – 3(a) to 3(i) to show average consumption of electricity by the husking mill of Complainant.

It appears from the W.V. that the O.P. raised a question that the case is barred by limitation under section 24A of the C.P. Act.

But it reveals from petition of complaint  that the bills for the month  of June – 2012 and July – 2012 are under challenge in this case and it also reveals from exhibit – 4 that this Complainant made request to the O.P. to rectify the amount as claimed in the disputed bills by sending letter dated 13-05-2014 Exhibit – (4).  So, cause of action of this case arose on 13-05-2014 and this complaint filed on 05-06-2014, which is within two (2) years from the date of cause of action.  So, we hold that Complaint is not barred by limitation.

In this case Complainant claimed that he has started this husking mill business exclusively for the purpose of maintaining his livelihood by means of self-employment.  This matter has not been denied by the O.p. in his written argument as well as in W.V.  So, we hold that this Complainant is doing his husking mill business for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment.  So, in view of observation of Hon’ble National Commission reported in 2015(1) CPR page 788(NC) as well as  as per explanation of section 2(i)(d) of C.P. Act that this Complainant is a consumer and this complaint is maintainable.

It appears from exhibit – 3 series that this Complainant ordinarily consumed electricity within range of 296 units to 468 units per month during the undisputed period while meter

 was recording electricity consumption correctly.

But it reveals from the disputed bill exhibited – 3(J) & 3(K) that this Complainant was sent these two disputed bills showing consumption 4266 units in the month of June – 2012  exhibit – 3(K) i.e. bill July - 2012 and it also reveals from exhibit – 3(J) that this O.P. also sent bills showing consumption of 2084 units  in the month of May – 2012 i.e. bill for the month of  June - 2012.  There is nothing in the W.V. or in the written argument to justify the assessment of consumption in the bills showing the consumption of 2048 units in the month of May – 2012 vide bill dated 13-06-2012 and 4266 units in the month of June - 2012.

It has also not been stated in said bill exhibit – 2(J) & 2(K) that under what basis assessment of                    consumption of electricity in the month of May and June – 2012 were incorporated in said bills, ignoring the average consumption of electricity by Complainant in his case husking mill per month.

It has been observed by the Hon’ble National Commission reported on 2015(3)CPR page 334(NC) C.P. Act section 3 – Electricity – Exorbitant bills – Defective meter – There is no documentary evidence on record to establish that petitioner had used the electricity for a purpose other than domestic – In absence of any assessment done by respondent – Consumer Forum has jurisdiction to entertain this matter.

In the present case there is no documentary evidence or no allegation to prove that this Complainant had used this electricity other than the purpose of operation of his husking machine.  Ordinarily this Complainant consumed units of electricity within the range 296 units  to 468 units in a month but this O.P. sent bill showing consumption of 2084 units and 4266 units, without assigning any explanation / reasons .  No reasonable explanations have been given by the O.P. in the matter of assessment of consumption of units in disputed bills.

In view of the above facts & circumstances and discussions made above we are inclined to hold that the assessment of consumption of electricity 2084 units in bill June – 2012 and claiming of consumption of electricity 4266 units vide bill July – 2012 are arbitrary, excessive and exaggerated and without any basis.

So, the assessment of unit of consumption in impugned bills are liable to be declared as void as those bills were not prepared according to the recording of meter but prepared without any basis, whimsically as well as arbitrarily.

In view of the above facts & circumstances we find if the O.P. is directed to prepare a

fresh bill for the disputed period on the basis of average consumption according to the meter reading recording of the meter previous to the disputed period in respect of case service connection for interest of justice then none would be prejudiced.

Accordingly, we hold that the Complainant has been able to prove his case.

We do not like to award any interest in security deposit a s there is nothing to show that he has made such prayer to the O.P. before filing of this case.

We also do not like to impose any cost as O.P. is Govt. under taking concern; so in view of observation of Hon’ble National Commission reported in 2015(1) CPR page 57 (NC) we do not like to award any cost / compensation in this case.

In view of above facts & circumstances Complainant is entitled to relief only in the matter of claim  made by O.P. in electric bills in question i.e. Exhibit – 2(J) & 2(K).

Hence, it is

                                                                                Ordered

That the Complaint Case no.70 of 2014 be and same is hereby allowed in part on contest.

The impugned bills in question i.e. bill for the month of June – 2012 exhibit – 3(J) and bill for the month of July – 2012 exhibit – 3(K) in respect of case service connection are hereby declared as void / arbitrary / exaggerated.

O.P. is hereby directed to prepare electric bill afresh for the disputed period i.e. June – 2012 to July – 2012 on the basis of average consumption of electric consumed by the Complainant previous to the date of disputed period within six (6) months from the date of receipts of copy of this Judgement and send the same to this Complainant asking him to pay the same within two (2) months from the date of receipt of bills;  if the Complainant fails to pay the same then O.P. is at liberty to proceed according to law in this regard.

This complaint is dismissed in respect of other prayer made by Complainant.

Let a plain copy of this Judgement be given to the parties free of cost.