DATE OF FILING : 14-09-2012.
DATE OF S/R : 10-10-2012.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 24-01-2013.
Neeraj Kumar,
123/Type II / PP,
P.O. G.I.P. Colony, Santragachi,
District –Howrah,
PIN – 711112.----------------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT.
Versus -
1. Station Manager,
WBSEDCL,
Santragachi, Group Electric Supply, Jagacha,
Howrah – 711112.
2. Chairman,
WBSEDCL, Bidyut Bhavan, Salt Lake,
Kolkata – 700091. -------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
President : Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.
Member : Shri P.K. Chatterjee.
Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
F I N A L O R D E R
The instant case was filed by complainant U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986,
as amended against the O.Ps. alleging deficiency in service U/S 2( 1 )( g ), 2( 1 )( o ) of the C.P. Act, 1986 wherein the complainant has prayed for passing necessary direction upon the O.Ps. i.e. WBSEDCL Authority for adjustment of the erratic bill sent during the billing period March,2012 to May,2012 to the complainant.
The brief facts of the complainant is that the complainant is a bonafide
domestic consumer having Consumer No. C 054525 of total connected load 0.68 kw. is consuming energy for his domestic purpose and the same is recording through a meter being no. L 0544415 is recorded correct consumption as per report of the complainant and time to time paid the energy bill as sent by the o.p. without raising any objection. But suddenly received an erratic electric bill as alleged by the complainant for the period March,2012 to May,2012 ( summer season ) of unit consumption 2315 amounting to Rs. 16,215/- on which he lodged a complaint regarding excessive unit consumption arrested by the existing meter in comparison to the earlier consumption for which he prayed for adjustment of the disputed bill/bills and hence the case.
The o.p. 1 herein Station Manager, WBSEDCL Authority, in their written
version denied all the allegations made by the complainant and installed a challenged meter side by side of the existing meter and also a periodical tabulation had put forward showing there in the reading of challenged meter and so called defective meter as alleged by the complainant is same for which the allegations made by the complainant is far from truth and the bill for the billing cycle March,2012 to May,2012 including Dec,2012 to Feb,2013 as sent is correct as recorded in the existing meter for which question of adjustment of the erratic bill as alleged does not arise at all at the present moment and the case should be dismissed with a cost.
4. Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :
Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. WBSEDCL Authority ?
Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
5. Both the points are taken up together for consideration. Admittedly the complainant raised / lodged complain both verbally / written for excess raising of energy bills for the period March,2012 to May,2012 and December,2012 to February,2013 amounting to Rs. 16,215/- and Rs. 2,489/- respectively and this upward swing of drawing of the bill is baseless, perplexing and vexatious by the o.p no. 1 against recording consumption through meter being no. L 0544415. The o.p. no. 1 on the other hand installed a challenged meter on the dated 12-05-2012 side by side in the existing meter and recorded the unit consumption against the installed meter and challenged meter for the period 12-05-2012 to 22-05-2012 and 05-06-2012 to 19-08-2012 which shows that the unit consumption during the period is same through challenged meter against the existing meter and no anomalies were found for arresting correct consumption and that to the o.p. no. 1 informed the complainant vide his letters dated 25-04-2012 and 27-08-2012 as per record.
6. In any event, after a challenged meter was installed the correctness whereof was not questioned, the petitioner, in law was bound to pay the charges in terms for consumption of electrical energy as recorded in the existing installed meter which was duly tally the energy consumption during a certain period through a challenged meter / check meter which can be treated as altered meter in place of meter earlier installed ( here the meter no. L 0544415 ). Moreover, the consumer did not raise any dispute regarding other bills except the above two billing cycles or not given any evidence of any other electric bill for a comparative study considering the seasonal consumption period in spite of the fact that the connected load as per is 680 watts.
In the result, we are of the view that the complainant is entitled to be relieved to some extent for his mental pain and agony due to handling the matter by the o.p. no. 1 in a negligent manner resultant the complainant harassed to a great extent.
Points under consideration are accordingly decided.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 112 of 2012 ( HDF 112 of 2012 ) be allowed on contest to some extent.
The O.P. no. 1 WBSEDCL Authority be directed to replace the old meter by a new one with some rating without cost within 15 days and recorded the units consumption per day and regeneration through computerized system of the disputed bills for the period March, 2012 to May, 2012 and December,2012 to February, 2013 only within 45 days for the sake of natural justice. The complainant is duty bound to pay the adjusted amount of disputed bill along with running bill against installed meter and proposed meter.
No costs against compensation and litigation are awarded.
The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.
