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

Case no. CC/34/2016

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

Complainant – Ajijul Haque,  S/O Naimuddin  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 cancellation of bill dated 04 – 02 – 2016, issued to the complainant, by the O P, towards, consumption of electricity, by the complainant, pertaining to the month of February, 2016.

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 312009923, 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. 3241/-, pertaining to the month of 2/2016, which seems to him, to be baseless, fictitious and not based on his actual consumption of electricity.

Alongwith the amount, mentioned, above, an amount of Rs. 5043=00 only, has been shown, as outstanding payment, to be paid by the complainant to the OP, which seems to the complainant, as fictitious.

Hence, the complainant filed the instant case, before this Forum, with the prayer to cancel the bill, in question.

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 cancelling the disputed bill.

The OP argued that the bill, for 2/2016, was prepared on the basis of actual consumption of electricity, by the complainant and also submitted the logic of reflection of the outstanding amount, with the bill for 2/2016.

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, 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 big amount, compared to his earlier bills, based on his earlier consumption (s). It seems that, he was also unaware about the payment of outstanding amount, as mentioned by the OP, with the bill, in question.

The OP also substantiated about the logic, for preparing the bill for 2/2016.

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. 34/2016, is hereby allowed in part, instructing the complainant, to pay the entire amount of Rs. 8284=62 only, (Rs. 3241=00 + 5043=62) in 4 EMI (s), first of which, should be paid, within 15 days, from the date of receipt of this order. The rest of the 3 installments should be paid by the complainant, in subsequent 3 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 the 1^st installment, 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.