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

CASE No.CC/173/2016.

 Date of Filing:   28.11.2016.                                                                         Date of Final Order: 30.03.2017.

Complainant: Alia Bibi, W/O Azijur Rahaman, Vill. -Goruhat, Ward No. 7, P.O.- Dhulian,

                        P.S.- Samserganj, Dist.- Murshidabad, Pin- 742202.

-Vs-

Opposite Party: Station Manager, Dhulian CCC, WBSEDCL, P.O.- Dhulian, P.S.- Samserganj,

                           Dist.- Murshidabad.

                       Present:   Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya …………………. President.                              

                                         Sri Samaresh Kumar Mitra ……………………..Member.

FINAL ORDER

Sri Samaresh Kumar Mitra, Member.

            This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying for direction upon the OP to issue a fresh and correct bill for the month of October to November,2016 and compensation for damages.

            The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he is a consumer under the OP/WBSEDCL by obtaining electricity for his dwelling house. The complainant consumed electricity of 360 units for the months of April to June, 2016 and 345 units for the months of July to September, 2016.Due to financial crisis he could not pay the amount of those bills. As a consequence, the OP disconnected the service line of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant paid Rs. 2750/- and Rs.100/- for disconnection and reconnection charges and the OP restored the service line of the complainant.  On 14.10.2016 the complainant got a bill of 1239 units of Rs.9,644.52 for the months of October to December, 2016 which is highly excessive. The complainant went to the office of the OP for lodging a complain regarding defective meter but the OP refused the same and threatened him with disconnection. The OP, without taking proper meter reading, prepared a fictitious, imaginary and inflated bill which is beyond his capacity to pay. Hence, the instant complaint case.

            The case of the OP, in brief, is that the complainant is a consumer under the OP having I.D. No.3000747779. Previously, the connection of the complainant was disconnected due to non-payment of electric bills. After reconnection, a bill for the month of October to December, 2016 for Rs. 9,644.52 was raised. As the meter was defective the bill was prepared as per norms of WBSEDCL. The estimated period for the reading date i.e. from 28.6.2016 to 25.09.2016 is 89 days. In the previous year the consumption for the period of 10.7.2015 to 07.10.2015 i.e. for 90 days was 1142 units but within that period 8 days were not counted due to disconnection. So, the average consumption in base period was 1142/82 = 13.927 units per day .Accordingly the bill was prepared for 1239 units.  The bill was prepared as per provision of electricity Act. There are no latches on the part of this OP. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

            Argument as advanced by the agents of the parties heard in full.

            From the discussions herein above, we find the following issues/points for consideration.

ISSUES/POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION

1. Whether the complainant is a “consumer’ under the Opposite Party?
2. Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try this case?
3. Whether the OP carried on unfair trade practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards the complainant?
4. Whether the complainant proved his case against the Opposite Party, as alleged and whether the Opposite Party is liable for compensation to him?

DECISION WITH REASONS

            In the light of discussions here in above we find that the issues/points should be decided based on the above perspective.

     1).Whether the complainant Alia Bibi is a “Consumer” of the Opposite Party.

           From the material on record it is transparent that the complainant is a Consumer as provided by the spirit of section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 because the complainant is an old customer of the WBSEDCL having Consumer I.D. No. 300747779. He has been consuming electricity by paying electric bills. So, he is a consumer under the OP. Besides, the OP admitted in para 7 of written version that the complainant is a consumer under the OP and is entitled to get service from the OP.

2).Whether this Forum has territorial /pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?

Both the complainant and the OP are residents within the district of Murshidabad. The complainant prayed for rectification of the electric bill for Rs.9, 644.52 of 1239 units. So, this Forum has territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try this case.

3).Whether the Opposite Party carried on Unfair Trade Practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards the Complainant?

It appears from the case record and the documents as produced by the parties in dispute that the Complainant received an electric bill of 360 units for the months April to June, 2016. Again he received a bill for 345 units for the month of July to September, 2016 of 345 units i.e. 705 units for six months i.e. 3.92 units per day.

Again he received the impugned bill for Rs.9,644.52 of 1239 units for the months of October to December, 2016 i.e. 13.77 units per day, which, in our opinion, is excessive and inflated to adomestic consumer as compared to his previous consumption. The bill should be cancelled and a fresh bill should be issued taking 3.92 units per day.

So from the above discussions, we are of the considered view that a fresh bill @ 3.92 units per day consumption for the months October to December, 2016 be generated and sent by the OP to the complainant.

The OP is also directed to replace the defective meter, if any, and reconnect the service line of the complainant after paying the first installment.

     4).Whether the complainant proved her case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to him?

           The discussion made herein before, we have no hesitation to come in a conclusion that the complainant proved his case by filing evidence. The Opposite Party is under liability to generate fresh bill taking the reasonable consumption of the consumer for the disputed period and cancel the bill dated 14.10.2016 and to install new meter by replacing the defective meter as alleged by the complainant.

             Hence it is ordered that the Complaint Case No.173/2016 be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP.

          The OP is directed to prepare a fresh bill @ 3.92 units per day consumption for the months October to December, 2016 and sent to the complainant with a direction to pay the due bill for the said period in 2 installments within 30 days from receiving this order and after getting first installment the OP should connect the power connection of the complainant within 7 days. The current bills are to be prepared in accordance with the reading as reflected in the meter card. The OP should take appropriate steps so that the consumer should not meet such a liability to pay bills of huge accumulated units and disconnection for nonpayment of such bills.  The OP is further directed to change the meter if it is found defective.

            No other reliefs are awarded to the complainant.

           At the event of failure to comply with the order the Opposite Party shall pay cost @ Rs.50/- for each day’s delay, if caused, on expiry of the aforesaid 30 days by depositing the accrued amount, if any,  in the fund of  “Consumer Legal Aid Account”.

            Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their Ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/sent by ordinary post forthwith, for information & necessary action.

           Dictated and corrected by me.

                        Member,                                                                                               President.