Date of Filing: 22-03-2016 Date of Final Order: 05-01-2018
Sri Asish Kumar Senapati, President
This is a complaint U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
The sum and substance of the complaint may be described as follows :-
One Sushil Kumar Layek (hereinafter referred to as Complainant) filed this case against Station Manager, W.B.S.E.D.C.L., Cooch Behar (hereinafter referred to as the OP) alleging deficiency in service. The complaint case, in brief, is that one Smt. Rekha Roy Layek, since deceased, wife of the Complainant, was a consumer of the OP vide Consumer ID No.424085229 and Meter No. LL-292950. After the death of the said Smt. Rekha Roy Layek on 10.03.16, the Complainant is the beneficiary of the said electric connection. That the OP issued 3 bills for the period from June, 2015 to August, 2015 demanding Rs.1,04,715.91 for total consumption of 11,286 units. That the recording of the Meter was abnormal for which the OP was requested to rectify and re-generate the electric bill but of no result and ultimately, the electric connection was cut off on 18.02.16 without serving any notice upon the Complainant. That according to the investigation of the OP, the Meter was checked and found correct in all respect. Finding no other alternative, the Complainant has filed this complaint with a prayer for a direction upon the OP for reconnection of the electric line and to pay Rs.20,000/- for mental agony and harassment and Rs.5,000/- for litigation cost.
The OP put his appearance and filed w/v on 04.05.17 contending that the case is not maintainable as there was/is no cause of action to file the case against the OP and the Complaint petition is liable to be dismissed u/s 26 of the CP Act, 1986. The OP has admitted that one Smt. Rekha Roy Layek was the consumer of the OP vide Consumer ID No.424085229 but the OP is not aware of her death.
It is the version of the OP that the Complainant and his wife both were in service prior to June, 2015, for which periodical physical Meter reading could not be taken by the staff of the OP from the premises of the Complainant since last 2 years before June, 2015 and the OP prepared the bill on good faith considering the previous consumption but no door locked bill was prepared because, if 3 consecutive door locked bills are sent to the consumer, the agreement between the licensee and the consumer is deemed to be terminated. The Complainant received such bills for last 2 years without raising any objection for non-taking of physical Meter reading. On 03.06.15, the staff of the OP recorded Meter reading as 13325 units on physical verification and the bill for the months of June, 2015 to August, 2015 was claimed for 11,286 units amounting to Rs.1,04,715/-. Thereafter, on 31.08.15, physical Meter reading was taken and the OP prepared the bills for the months of September to November, 15 without showing the outstanding amount as the last due date of payment of previous bill was 12.08.15.
It is pertinent to mention that if the bill is prepared after one month from the last date of payment of the previous bill, in that case, outstanding amount of previous bill is reflected in the present bill. As the previous bill of Rs.1,04,715/- was locked in Computer Software, the Complainant was able to pay the next bill of Rs.1,649/- with availing special rebate on 15.09.15. The Complainant never requested the OP to rectify and regenerate the said bill. As the bill for the period from June, 2015 to August, 2015 was not paid by the Complainant, a system generated disconnection notice dated 02.02.16 was prepared and sent to the Complainant u/s 56 of the Electricity Act and thereafter on 18.02.16, electric connection in the premises of the Complainant was disconnected by the OP as per Section 56 of the Electricity Act. On 19.02.16 and 20.02.16, Smt. Rekha Roy Layek submitted prayers for rectification of the bill and after considering the prayer, the OP prepared and supplied one regenerated bill with slab benefit and tariff benefit amounting Rs.98,666/- by cancelling the bill for Rs.1,04,715/-. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
On the basis of above versions, the following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the Complainant a Consumer as per provision under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?
- Has the O.P any deficiency in service, as alleged by the Complainant?
- Whether the Complainant entitled to get any relief/reliefs, as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point No.1.
The Ld. Agent for the Complainant submitted that Complainant, being the beneficiary of the original consumer is a consumer under the OP. The Ld. Agent for the OP stated nothing on this point. It appears from the Xerox copy of death certificate of Smt. Rekha Roy filed by the Complainant that Rekha Roy Layek died on 10.03.16 (Annex.-A). Admittedly, the Complainant is the husband of Smt. Rekha Roy Layek and he is the beneficiary of the electric connection in the name of his wife Rekha Roy Layek.
So, it can be safely said that the Complainant is a representative of the original consumer Rekha Roy Layek and he is eligible for filing the complaint as a Complainant.
Point No.2.
The Ld. Agent for the Complainant submitted that this Forum has both territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
On going through the materials on record, we find that this Forum has both territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. This point is thus disposed of.
Point Nos.3 & 4.
Both the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and to avoid repetition.
The Ld. Agent for the Complainant submitted that electric bill for the period from June, 2015 to August, 2015 was excessive and without any basis. It was argued that the OP did not take the Meter reading regularly and the electric line was cut off on 18.02.16 without serving any notice u/s 56 of the Electricity Act. It was urged that consumption of 11,286 units for a period of 3 months in a domestic connection is absurd and impossible so, the bills for the said period was un-just and baseless. It was argued that the Complainant suffered mental agony and harassment for disconnection of electric line without any notice as per Section 56 of Electricity Act. It was contended that the plea taken by the OP that the OP could not record the Meter reading due to door locked had never been reflected in the electric bills and the Complainant was never called in the Office of the OP to show the reason as to why the premises of the Complainant was locked. He submitted that the Complainant is entitled to get reliefs in terms of the prayer as mentioned in the complaint.
In reply, the Ld. Agent for the OP submitted that the Meter of the Complainant was not defective. It was argued that the Meter reading Card of the Complainant would show that the OP could not record the Meter reading for about 2 years after 02.03.14 and after taking the Meter reading, the bill for the months of June, 2015 to August, 2015 was prepared claiming the actual units consumed by the consumer. He contended that the OP did not prepare the door locked bills as door locked bills for 3 consecutive months might terminate the agreement between the parties. It was urged that the OP has no deficiency in service and the disconnection of electric line on 18.02.16 is also on the basis of notice dated 02.02.16 for non-payment of electricity charges. He argued that the OP prepared and supplied regenerated bill to the Complainant with slab benefits and tariff benefits but the Complainant did not pay any amount as yet, resulting disconnection of electric line. He prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
We have gone through the written complaint, w/v, evidence and documents submitted by both sides. We have also considered the submission of both sides. Admittedly, one Rekha Roy Layek, since deceased, the wife of the Complainant was a consumer under the OP and the bill for the months of June, 2015 to August, 2015 had not yet been paid. It was the allegation of the Complainant that the bill for the months of June, 2015 to August, 2015 claiming Rs.1,04,715/- for consumption of 11,286 units was absurd and baseless. The Complainant did not file any application before the appropriate authority for examination of his electric meter to ascertain as to whether the Meter was defective or not. The Complainant raised no objection in connection with the bill after the period of the disputed bill i.e. during the period from September, 2015 to November, 2015. Therefore, it can be safely said that the Complainant accepted that the Meter was not defective. It appeared from the letter/notice dated 02.02.16 issued by the OP that the Meter was working appropriately at the time of inspection of their technical personnel on 02.02.16 and the Meter reading was 14,335. The Complainant received the notice by putting his signature. There is nothing on record that the Complainant raised any objection against the contention of the letter/notice dated 02.02.16. Therefore, it can be said that Meter reading as on 02.02.16 was 14,335 as stated in the notice/letter dated 02.02.16. The OP did not claim any amount in excess of the units consumed by the Complainant as per Meter reading. Admittedly, there is no Meter reading recorded during the period from 02.03.14 to 02.02.16. There are allegations of the Complainant that the OP did not take Meter reading regularly and it is the plea of the OP that the staff of the OP could not record Meter reading as they could not enter into the premises due to lock and key of the premises of the Complainant. It is also the plea of the OP that both original consumer and the Complainant were in service for which the staff of the OP could not take Meter reading regularly and no door locked bill was prepared to avoid termination of agreement between the licensee and the consumer.
Whatever may be the fact, it is true that Meter reading was not recorded during the period from 03.03.14 to 01.02.16 by default of either of the parties, but it cannot be said that the Meter reading showing 14,335 units as on 02.02.16 is incorrect. The OP has claimed electric charges by taking the units consumed as per Meter reading. Therefore, the Complainant cannot avoid to make payment of the bill for his consumption of electricity as per units actually consumed by him. The crux of the grievance may be that consumption of electricity of 11,286 units during the period from June, 2015 to August, 2015 is not justified. It is clear from the submission of Ld. Agent for the OP that the OP prepared bills for a considerable period on assumption. The Complainant has not paid the bills from June, 2015 to August, 2015 to avoid disconnection in terms of Section 56 of Electricity Act. The Complainant ought to pay the electricity charges due from him for each month calculated on the basis of average charge for electricity paid by him during the preceding 6 months to avoid disconnection. The OP has not prepared the bills for the months of June, 2015 to August, 2015 in accordance with rules. The OP may be directed to regenerate the bills during the period from March, 2014 to January, 2016 by giving slab benefit to the Complainant after deducting any amount if paid by the Complainant/Rekha Roy Layek. The Complainant has also alleged that service connection was disconnected without any notice u/s 56 of Electricity Act. It appears from the letter dated 02.02.16 issued by the OP to the Complainant that there was mention about disconnection of electric line for non-payment of bills and the Complainant received the notice dated 02.02.16 by putting his signature.
Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the disconnection of electric line on 18.02.16 is not arbitrary and illegal. We find that the OP prepared the bills for the months of June, 2015 to August, 2015 not in accordance with the rules. We find that the OP has deficiency in service for preparation of electricity bills for the months from June to August, 2015 and the Complainant has also defaulted to pay the electricity charges due from him for each month calculated on the basis of average charge for electricity paid by him during the preceding 6 months.
We think that the Complainant is entitled to get Rs.1,000/- as litigation cost and Rs.1,000/- for deficiency in service.
In the result, the complaint case succeeds in part.
Fees paid are correct.
Hence,
It is Ordered,
That the complaint case be and the same is hereby allowed on contest against the OP with cost of Rs.1,000/-. The OP is hereby directed to regenerate the bills for the period from March, 2014 to January, 2016 on the basis of actual consumption on average of the units and without imposing any surcharge/penalty, after deducting the amount if already paid by the Complainant or his wife Rekha Roy Layek within 45 days by allowing 2 months time to make the payment.
The OP is also directed to pay Rs.1,000/- to the Complainant for deficiency in service. The O.P. may realize the amount of Rs.2,000/- from the concerned Staff/Official who is/are responsible for deficiency in service to the Complainant.
The OP is directed to comply the aforesaid order by 45 days from the date of Final Order, failing which the OP has to pay Rs.50/- for each day’s delay and the accumulated amount is to be deposited in the State Consumer Welfare Fund.
Let plain copy of this Order be supplied to the parties concerned by hand/by Post forthwith, free of cost for information & necessary action. The copy of the Final Order will also be available in the following Website:
confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me.
