IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.

Case no. CC/32/2016

Date of filing: 08-03-2016                                                                Date of disposal: 13-12-2017

Complainant – Eusuf Ali Sk, S/O Late Naiumuddin Sk., Village & P O – Swaruppur, P S – Hariharpara,

District – Murshidabad, Pin Code – 742166, West Bengal.

                                                             VS.

1. The Station Manager, WBSEDCL,

Baharan Customer Care  Unit, P O – Baharan, P S – Hariharpara,

District – Murshidabad, Pin Code – 742132 – Opposite Party.

 Present :  Sri Manas Kumar Mukherjee,  - Member

                                                    Smt. Chandrima Chakraborty - Member

FINAL ORDER

 Sri Manas Kumar Mukherjee,  Presiding  Member

This case has been filed by the complainant U/S 12 of C P Act’1986, praying for submission of fresh and corrected bill, by the OP, based on actual consumption of electricity, by the complainant, for the month of February, 2016 and to quash the bill, already submitted by the OP.

The case of the complainant, in brief, is that, complainant is a consumer of electricity, used, for operating, water lifting motor, with a connected load of 4.39 KVA, bearing Consumer no. ID 312069930, used for irrigating his own land, for earning his livelihood and also mentioned that, this is his only source of income.

The complainant further stated that his monthly consumption, varies from 80 to 100 units and further stated that he has no outstanding, towards consumption of electricity, by him, to be paid to the OP.

The complainant received a bill amounting to Rs. 21,625/-, pertaining to the month of 2/2016, which seems to him, to be baseless, fictitious and not based on his actual consumption of electricity.

Hence, the complainant filed the instant case, before this Forum.

The OP, through its W/V, stated that the instant case is not maintainable, barred by limitation, alongwith other observations.

The OP denied all the allegations, made by the complainant. The OP further stated that it prepares, bills, on the basis of normal consumption period, peak consumption period and off – pick consumption period, the consumption type being STW.

The OP further stated that, as instructed, the STW meter reading was taken by them by using remote MRI machine. But in meters, manufactured by ‘Landis Gyr’, the OP, found some technical problems, while reading the meter, hence, the OP was bound to send, minimum bill to the complainant, for the period, on and from July, 2015 to January, 2016, without meter reading. Again, the OP, contradicting his own statement, stated that it used to send bills, according to the actual meter reading, since 11/2015.

The OP, further stated that bills, pertaining to the period of 2/2016 and onwards, showed monthly consumption of electricity by the complainant of more than 80 – 100 units and concluded with the statement that, as the bill is a proper one, the complainant, should pay the bill, in question.

During the period of argument, the complainant, again stated that the bill for 2/2016, was not prepared, based on its actual consumption of electricity. The complainant further prayed for reconnection of his electricity line, although the fact of disconnection was not mentioned, in his initial complainant. He concluded with the prayer of submission of fresh bill, by the OP, based on his actual consumption.

The OP argued that the bill, for 2/2016, was prepared on the basis of consumption of 3039 units of electricity, by the complainant, over the period. He further mentioned about the 3 periods of billing, as mentioned in its W/V.

The OP further stated that, the complainant neither reported, that his meter, to be defective, nor mentioned about the same, in the complaint.

The OP further prayed for payment of electricity charges, by the complainant, for the period, on and from 30/12/2015 to the date of disconnection, before reconnection of the meter.

                                                                       Points to be considered

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief / relieves, as prayed for.

Decisions with reasons

To prove the case, the complainant adduced, affidavit – in Chief, along with other requisite materials.The OP also submitted requisite documents, alongwith its W/V.

It is observed that the complainant, being a cultivator, was not expecting a bill of such huge amount, compared to his earlier bills, based on his earlier consumption (s).

The OP also substantiated about the logic, for preparing the bill, in question.

As the matter of actual disconnection of the electricity line of the complainant, was not mentioned in the complaint (apprehension of disconnection, has been mentioned, only), it is difficult to ascertain the period of consumption of electricity by the complainant, for the period, on and from, 30/12/2015 to the date of disconnection.

Hence,

ORDERED

That the Consumer Complaint no. 32/2016, is hereby allowed in part, instructing the complainant to pay an amount of Rs. 5000/- to the OP, as an initial payment of the outstanding bill, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. The balance amount of Rs. 16, 625/- pertaining to the disputed bill, needs to be paid by the complainant, in 8 equal monthly installments, to be paid, in subsequent / next 8 months, month after month, within 15^th of every month.

The OP is also directed to reconnect the electricity line of the complainant, within 7 days, from the date of receipt of initial payment of Rs. 5000/-, from the complainant,in default, the OP will have to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- per day’s delay and the amount, so accumulated, shall be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid account.

Let a copy of this order be made available and be supplied free of cost to each of the parties, on contest, by hand, under proper acknowledgement / be sent, forthwith, under ordinary post, to the concerned parties, as per rules, for information and necessary action.