IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC/99/2014
Date of Filing: 23.07.2014. Date of Final Order:23.04.2015.
Complainant: Sampurna Santra, C/O Hostel Superintendent, QR No. 48, M.C.E.T.
P.O. Cossimbazar, P.S. Berhampore Town, Dist. Murshidabad.
-Vs-
Opposite Party: Station Manager, WBSEDCL, Berhampore, P.O&P.S. Berhampore,
Dist. Murshidabad. Pin Code- 742101.
Present: Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya ………………….President.
Sri Samaresh Kumar Mitra …………………… Member.
Smt. Pranati Ali ……….……………….……………. Member.
FINAL ORDER
Smt. Pranati Ali, Presiding Member.
The complainant, Sampurna Santra filed a consumer Complaint u/s 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 , who is a consumer of the OP/Station Manager, WBSEDCL, Berhampore by paying electric bills regularly. The fact of the case is that the complainant resides at a quarter in the M.C.E.T complex, for which she regularly paid the bill of her domestic electric connection given by the WBSEDCL, but the complainant astonished when she observed the bill for the month of February, 2014 to April 2014 amount of Rs.19, 707/- for 2474 units, which seems absurd in comparison with previous bills. The complainant met with the OP and asked for correction of the bill, but the OP, instead of correction sent the bill for the next month’s bills i.e. May, 2014 to July,2014, where the outstanding amount is shown Rs.13,314/- which is another baseless matter, as because the complainant did not pay any amount out of Rs.19,707/-. So, how the amount changed in Rs.13,314/- . Therefore, the complainant tried to pay the bill according to previous bills, but the OP refused the same and demanded the amount of incorrect bill. According to the complainant this is a clear deficiency in service. So, she came to this Forum for proper redress.
On the other hand the Opposite Party appeared in this case by filing written version, where he denied the allegations of deficiency in service, like sending incorrect bill for the month of February, 2014 to April, 2014, as well as baseless bill for the month of May,2014 to July,2014. The OP also stated that the old electric meter of the complainant was replaced with a new electric meter and at the time of replacement the units of old meter was 181 as well as the new meter unit was 109, so the bill dated 25.07.2012 raised to 290 units for the months of 08/12, 09/12 and 10/12, But the next billing cycle was 96 units, as because the previous reading units 109 was deducted from the present reading units 205. According to the OP, afterwards, every billing cycle was prepared with this manner, like 85 units for the month 02/13 to 04/13, 246 units for the months of 5/13 to 7/13, 289 units for the months of 9/13 to 10/13, 200 units for the month 11/13 to 1/14 and lastly 2474 units for the months of 2/14 to 4/14. Therefore, when the complainant applied for correction of the bill, then this OP installed one Master Meter for checking from 23.03.2014 to 31.03.2014 and found disputed meter is correct. So, according to OP there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and the case is liable to be rejected.
The only point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for and whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OP as alleged or not.
Decision with reasons
The complainant in support of his case has submitted Xerox copies of bills and payment receipts along with letter of quarters allotment by MCET to the complainant. The OP also submitted Xerox copies of all bills in support of their side.
On close perusal of the submitted documents it is evident that the new meter started with 109 units instead of 0 units and added with previous meter’s 181 units, whether other bills used to prepare in different manner. So, due to prior 109 units and added with previous 181 units the complainant had to pay 290 units which is really unfair.
Besides this, the sharp variation of the units of the bills create some questions of negligence/deficiency in service, like 290 units, 96 units, 85 units, 246 units, 289 units, 200 units and the disputed bill of 2474 units.
Though all bills are apparently correct in calculation of reading units and consumed units, but suddenly a sharp variation in units i.e. 200 units to 2474 units is not normal in a domestic electric meter. In this matter, we found that from the starting of new meter, each and every bill was different than other, which evident that the meter or the reading is not correct. It is true that the OP installed a Master Meter for checking the existing meter and found O.K. But the Master Meter was installed only for 08 days, which is not sufficient to assess the defect. The OP should think for suitable method for proper utilization of Master Meter to get better result.
Regarding excessive electricity charges, we can recall the order of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission published in 2014(1)CPR 242(NC) that the Electricity Board cannot charge excessive electricity bill, the observation was like.
“It is surprising to note that, OP has not produced any evidence to show the installation report of the new meter or no affidavit of the person who installed the meter and who has taken the meter reading initiative has been filed. Therefore, we are constrained to conclude that the electricity consumption of domestic meter must be between 100-150 units only, and the disproportionate bills were issued by OP. It is true that the old meter was changed because it was running very fast. Hence, OP had unnecessarily charged excessive electricity bill. Therefore, there is deficiency in service on the part of OP. Hence, we set aside both the orders of the Fora below and allow this Revision Petition with the following order:
The OPs are directed to rectify erratic billing by considering the initial meter reading of 1020 units and send the bills accordingly with due care and caution.”
In this case also, we observed that the electric bills of the complainant were varied than the previous bills but the disputed bill raised 2474 units from the 200 units, which is clearly an abnormal, excessive bill. The OP cannot avoid the responsibility of making and sending of this disputed bill. We are unable to understand as to why the bill was not re-checking /verify by the OP, whereas the complainant requested to verify the matter. The OP did not pay any heed to the same, but it is their duty to the public as a service provider. So, it is a clear deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
On the basis of above discussions and the material on the record, we are of the view that the complainant is entitled to get the disputed bills be corrected and fresh bills be prepared after installation of new meter on the basis of average units consumption giving slab benefit deducting the amount paid for preparation of fresh bills for the period from billing month of 08/12 to 10/12, to billing month of 02/14 to 07/14 as per above basis the OP is to consider the last reading as 4017 as per bill dated 08.05.14 and deduct 1025 units already paid and then to give slab benefit on the basis of average for the above period.
Regarding prayer for compensation of Rs.10000/- we find that this is a domestic meter where complainant is getting slab benefit after installation of new meter and for that we are of the opinion that the complainant is not entitled to get any other relief as compensation.
Thus the case succeeds.
Hence,
ORDERED
that the Consumer Complaint No. 99/2014 be and the same is allowed on contest without order as to cost.
The OP/Station Manager, Berhampore WBSEDCL is hereby directed to rectify the disputed bills after installation of new meter and prepare fresh bill on the basis of average units consumption giving slab benefit deducting the amount paid considering the last reading as 4017 as per bill dated 08.05.14 and deduct 1025 units already paid and then to give slab benefit on the basis of average for the above period within 30 days and inform the complainant from the date of this order. In default, the OP is to pay @ Rs.50/- per day’s delay and the amount so accumulated shall be deposited to the Consumer Legal Aid Account.
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 with A/D to the concerned parties as per rules, for information and necessary action.
Member Member President
