IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.

CASE No.  CC /181/2014

 Date of Filing:            23.12.2014                                                                           Date of Final Order: 22.01.2016.

Complainant:             Ashok Kumar Sonar, S/O Late Bholanath Sonar, 64/4, Kantanagar Road,

                                    Khagra, Dist. Murshidabad.

Vs

Opposite Party:           Station Manager, WBSEDCL, Cossimbazar CCC, P.O. Khagra, Dist. Murshidabad.

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

                                                                        Smt. Pranati Ali ……….……………….……………. Member.

FINAL ORDER

 Smt. Pranati Ali, Presiding Member.

Brief fact of the complainant u/s 12 of the C. P. Act, 1986 is that the complainant, Ashok Kumar Sonar, is a consumer of the OP/Station Manager, WBSEDCL, Cossimbazar CCC with a domestic electric connection being Consumer No. G 00166356. According to the complainant, meter was installed on 22.02.2012 with 0 unit and when the OP took reading on 02.04.2014 the unit was 7002. After that the OP personnel observed the meter on 08.07.2014 the meter was found no display and on 10.10.2014 the said meter was stopped. The complainant received the bill for the month of 08/2014 to 10/2014 with amount of Rs.18, 705/- against the consumption of 2106 units which is baseless, imaginary and illegal as because the meter was not displaying the figure. This act is a deficiency in service. So the complainant came to this Forum for proper redress with a prayer for fresh bill instead of disputed bill.

The OP/Station Manager, WBSEDCL, Cossimbazar CCC appeared in this case by filing written version., where he denied the allegation of making a baseless and illegal bill for the month of 8/14 to 10/14 . According to the OP, on 30.10.2014 at the time of preparation of bill, it was found that the meter is a defective meter, so the meter was replaced and the bill for the month of 8/2014 to 10/2014 was prepared as per provisions of regulation WBERC No. 55/WBERC Clause No. 3.6-1 i.e on the basis of consumption of 8/2013 to 10/2013 by the complainant when the meter was in good condition. The OP also stated that the total consumption period of 8/2013 to 10/2013 was 99 days and consumption units was 2291 units which was in average consumption per day 24.14 units. On the basis of that calculation, the bill for the month of 8/2014 to 10/2014 was prepared for 91 days consumption 2106 units with amount of Rs.2105.74. So, the OP has no deficiency in service and the case is liable to be dismissed.

The only point for consideration is that whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OP or not and or whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief or not.

                                 Decision with Reasons.

The complainant submitted some documents in favour of this case along with evidence on affidavit.

Perused the records, we observed that the complainant evident, through documents like Xerox copy of yellow card and letters written by the side of the complainant as well as received by the OP office that the meter reading dates are not true.

On the other hand, the OP explained in the written version that he prepared the said bill as per provision of regulations of WBERC No. 55/WBERC , Clause No. 3.6.1, as because at the time the meter of the complainant was defective. So, the OP estimated per day’s consumed unit on the basis of consumption unit on August 2013 to October, 2013 when the meter was in good condition. In the bill for the month of 8/2013 to 10/2013, the consumption unit was 2291 from the 25.06.2013 to 02.12.2013 is 99 days. So, the average consumption per day was 24.14 units. On the basis of that consumption, the OP estimated the disputed bill for the month of 08/2014 to 10/2014 i.e. from 20.06.2014 to 19.09.2014 is 91 days with consumption of 2106 units. This estimated bill was made as per Rules and Regulations. So, the OP had a good attempt to cope up the situation and within a possible period i.e. on 30.10.2014 the meter was also replaced by the OP.

On the basis of above discussions, we observed that the complainant consumed the electricity but the said meter did not display the consumption. So, the estimated consumption unit done by the OP is the only appropriate way to solve the problem. So, we have no other alternative but to conclude that the OP has no deficiency in service and the complainant has to pay the bill amount to the OP. But, the complainant being a common man the amount to be paid being Rs.18705/- we are of view that the complainant should get benefit to pay the dues in two instalments.

Considering the above facts and circumstances, we find that the case be allowed in part and the complainant will get benefit to pay the outstanding bill amounting to Rs.18705/- in two equal instalments.

Hence,

Ordered

that the Consumer Complaint No. 181/2014 be and the same is hereby allowed in part. There will be no order as to cost.

The complainant is directed to pay the outstanding bill amounting to Rs.18705/- in two equal instalments to be paid in the first week of March’16 and April’16.

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