Fact of the case of the Complainant in short is that the Complainant is a Consumer under the O.P. having service connection no. D/18487 as well as Consumer no.R671153 and is a regular payee of electric bill to the O.P. as per bill issued by the O.P. and this O.P. has consumed 92 units for the period April – 2011 to June – 2011 and 82 units for the period July – 2011 to September – 2011 and 85 units for the period October – 2011 to December – 2011 and 45 units for the period January – 2012 to March – 2012 according to the meter reading.

On 21-06-2013 this Complainant noticed that his meter was running first.  So, he made complaint to the office of the O.P. and one technical staff of the O.P. came and remove the fault of the said meter on 28-09-2012 and this O.P. sent a bill the period July – 2012 to September – 2012 on 12-07-2012 and claimed Rs.34,826/- for consumption of 4395 units.  Then this Complainant made complaint to the office of the O.P.   Thereafter, this O.P. sent a re-generated bill dated 04-09-2012 for the said period i.e. July – 2012 to September – 2012 showing consumption of 4395 units and claimed Rs.22,967/-  instead of Rs.34,862/-.  Thereafter, this Complainant made request several times to rectify the units of consumption of the said bill as well as the amount of the bill.  But the O.P. did not pay any heed.  So, this Complainant has filed this case and prayed for making direction upon O.P. to prepare a bill afresh for July – 2012 to September – 2012 and declared impugned bills are wrong, fictitious and baseless and he has also made further prayer for issuing afresh

bill for the month of October – 2012 to December – 2012 by adjusting the amount paid on

08-01-2012 and for other reliefs.

This case is being contested by the O.P. by filing W.V. denying all allegations has made in the petition of complaint contending inter alia that the case is not maintainable.

The Complainant did not deposit any amount for the consumption of electricity during the month of May – 2011 to January – 2013.  The claim of the Complainant is vague.  The impugned electricity bill was prepared after giving tariff benefit to this Complainant.  So, there was no deficiency in service.  So, complaint is liable to be dismissed.

In this case no oral evidences have been adduced by any parties.

The following documents are marked as exhibit for the Complainant.

Exhibit – 1 series are the electric bills.

Exhibit – 2 series are the Receipts.

Exhibit – 3 series are the letters.

                                                                Point for determinations.

1)  Whether the complaint is maintainable ?

2)  Whether the impugned bills are fictitious and exaggerated ?

3)  Whether there was any deficiency in service from the part of the O.P. ?

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

                                                                  Decision with reasons.

Both sides have filed their respective written argument.  Heard both sides.

Perused the written arguments, Contents of petition of complaint and Written Version and the documents exhibited in this case.

After perusing the materials on record and after hearing Ld. Advocate for the both sides it appears that this O.P. sent bill (Exhibit – 1(h)) for consumption of 4395 units during the period April – 2012 to June – 2012 when this Complainant has made objection against the said impugned bill then this O.P. sent revised bill dated 04-09-2012 (Exhibit – 1(i)) showing consumption of 4395 units during the period July – 2010 to June – 2012.

So, these two bills have been challenged by the Complainant by submitting several bills claiming that he never consumed 4395 units during that period.

On perusal of the bills it appears from exhibit – 1(C) that this bill was issued by the O.P. for consumption of 85 units for the period July – 2011 to September – 2011.  It reveals from exhibit – 1(i) that the said period July – 2011 to September – 2011 was also included in the claim for 4395 units showing consumption of July – 2010 to June – 2012 in bill dated 04-09-2012.  So, it prima facie proves that this O.P. has claimed consumption during the period July – 2011 to September – 2011 for the second time by issuing revised bills Exhibit – 1(i).  no documents have been filed to satisfy us that under what procedure or basis impugned bills have been calculated / prepared .  No reasons have also been given as to why the consumption  period July – 2011 to September – 2011 has been included in impugned bill Exhibit – 1(i) despite issuing of earlier bill dated 23-09-2011 Exhibit – 1(C)  showing consumption of electric for the period July – 2011 to September – 2011.

In view of the facts & circumstances we have sufficient reason to hold that Complainant has been able to prove prima facie that the claim made vide revised bill dated 12-07-2012 and bill dated 04-09-2012 Exhibit – 1(h) & 1(i) are incorrect / illegal / baseless and arbitrary.

Moreover, we find from the consumption of units consumed by the Complainant during the period previous to disputed bill’s period that the consumption of the units by Complainant never exceeds 300 units in three months.

In this case there is no dispute about the recording of the consumption of electric in the electric meter in case service connection and it is also undisputed that the electric meter not faulty / defective.

In view of the above facts & circumstances and discussion made above we are inclined to hold that the impugned bills in question were not prepared / calculated according to recording of meter reading but prepared / calculated without any legal basis whimsically as well as arbitrarily.

Hence, the impugned bills dated 12-07-2012 (exhibit – 1(h)) and another bill dated 04-09-2012 exhibit – 1(i) showing consumption of units for the month April – 2012 to June – 2012 and July-2010 to June – 2012 and void / inflated and arbitrary one.                                  

We also find if the O.P. is directed to prepare a fresh bill for the disputed period on the basis of average consumption according to meter reading / recording of the meter previous or post of 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.

Hence, it is

                                                                                 Ordered

That the Complaint Case no.76 of 2014 be and same is hereby allowed on contest; but without cost.

The impugned bills in question issued in respect of case service connection i.e. bills dated 12-07-2012 Exhibit – 1(h) and dated 04-09-2012 Exhibit – 1(i) are hereby declared as void /arbitrary.

O.P. is hereby directed to prepare an electric bill afresh for the disputed period on the basis of average consumption of electric, according to meter reading / recording of case meter previous or post period of consumption of disputed period, according to choice of O.P. by six (6) months from the date of receipt of copy of the Judgement and to send the same to this Complainant.

If any amount of bills during the period included in the impugned bill / bills are paid by the Complainant earlier to the disputed bill period then that amount shall be deducted / adjusted from the amount of fresh bill.

Complainant is also hereby directed to pay the amount of the fresh bill which will be sent to him by three months from the date of receipt of the bill.

If Complainant fails to pay the any amount of the fresh bill then O.P. is at liberty to disconnect the service connection for non-payment of the amount of the said fresh bill after observing all formalities as laid down in statute.

O.P. is Govt. under taking ; so in view of observation of Hon’ble National Commission reported in 2015(1) C.P.R. 57 [N.C.], no amount towards cost or compensation is awarded in favour of Complainant.

Interim order if any passed in connection with case stands vacated.

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