The complainant’s complaint in short is that she runs a Book stall for her livelihood from 15/17 years near Budha Mandir Gurung Basti, Pradhan Nagar in Siliguri in the name of Kalika Book & Stationery Stores. She is a consumer of West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited under Consumer ID. No. 412224200 from Pradhan Nagar Branch. She pays her electricity bills within due date on regular basis. On 03.01.2013 the OP i.e. WBSEDCL served a bill to the petitioner for 703 units and meter reading was 1333 (previous meter reading was 630) and sent bill was 4/5 times of regular bills which costs Rs.5788/-.
It is further case of the petitioner that she uses 3 CFL bulbs of 15 watts each and a ceiling fan in regular manner and fan remains switched off during winter days. The usual reading of the meter comes within 120-140 units in a gap of three months but first time due to this bill the petitioner became strange and made application to OP on 17.01.2013 for malfunctioning of the meter and correction of excess bill but OP did not take any step. Thereafter petitioner was again served excessive bill amount of Rs. 6269/- and unit consumed was shown as 60 units within a gap of three months.
It is further case of the petitioner that she made several applications to the OP but OP did not pay any heed to the problem
Contd….P/2.
-:2:-
of petitioner. Thereafter again on 11.12.2013 petitioner was served a bill with no units consumed but the petitioner has used electricity during that period. Thereafter petitioner informed the OP verbally then OP threatened the petitioner to trap her in false case.
The petitioner made last application to OP on 10.01.2018 but with no result, so the petitioner has filed this complaint case for correction of the electric bills and to make arrangement for payment of appropriate bill and litigation costs of Rs. 10,000/- with other reliefs.
The OP/WBSEDCL has filed written version after appearance. In the written version the OP has mentioned that complainant is a consumer and her ID is in the commercial category to run her business for earning profit, so she is not a consumer. Further the complaint is barred by limitation as bill dispute was for the periods from 29.08.2012 to 25.11.2012 and complaint has been filed after limitation period, so it is not maintainable.
It is further defense of the OP that power supplies of complainant which was commercial category was disconnected on 10.08.2013 and disconnected bill dt. 11.12.2013 with Zero (0) unit for the bull month December, 2013 to February, 2014 was generated in the name of complainant. Further due to non-payment of outstanding bills for the periods from September, 2012 to November, 2013 in premises of complainant is deemed terminated as per regulation of the OP. The deemed termination of agreement for disconnection remains for a period of 180 days.
It is further defense of OP that on 13.01.2013 one application was received from petitioner regarding excess billing for the periods from 29.08.2012 to 25.011.2012 for 703 KWH units i.e. consumption units from 630 KWH ( previous ) to 1333 KWH (Present). After physical inspection meter was found OK and this unit might have been consumed due to internal consumer wiring fault or accumulation of unit. Thereafter on 19.08.2016 an application was again received at Pradhan Nagar CCC regarding excess bill and defective meter and a check meter was installed as per OP’s regulation and during check period meter was found correct for using two units in existing meter and two units in check meter in between 26.07.2016 to 31.07.2016. The check meter report was signed with date by the representative on 26.07.2016 and consumer herself signed the report on 31.07.2016.
It is further defense of OP that again on 10.01.2018 consumer applied for excess billing and defective meter but on 15.01.2018 when inspection went then door was found under lock and key. The OP has acted as per regulations and complainant has no cause of action, so the complaint should be dismissed as there
Contd….P/3.
-:3:-
is no deficiency or negligence in service from the OP side.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATIONS
Upon consideration of complaint and written version and documents filed following points are required to be considered.
- Is the complainant a consumer under C.P. Act?
- Is the complaint time barred?
- Is the complaint maintainable?
- Is there any deficiency in service or negligence on the part of OP as alleged?
- Is the complainant entitled for the relief or reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
All these points are taken up for discussions together as each are inter related.
It is admitted by OP that complainant has an electric service connection in her name at her Book Stall and she runs the Book Stall for her livelihood and uses the electricity for that purpose. Thus complainant is not selling or transferring electricity for her business purpose but she is using the electricity to run her Book Stall, so that she can spend her life on earning by sale of books and stationeries. Thus the use of electricity is not for commercial purpose as alleged by OP rather earning for livelihood. So complainant is a consumer within the definition of Consumer Protection Act.
It has been also admitted that bill dt. 03.01.2013 is under dispute as unit consumed has been shown to 703 units for the periods from 29.08.2012 to 25.11.2012. In this bill the previous reading has been mentioned as 630 units. If previous bill which is for the periods from 28.05.2012 to 29.08.2012 is considered then the unit consumed has been mentioned as 129 units and previous reading has been mentioned as 501 units and present reading as 630 units. Complainant has filed other bills also starting from 2009 which shows that units consumed were very low and the disputed bill for 703 units has caused a suspicion.
After receipt of this bill petitioner submitted a complaint before OP on 17.01.2013 thereafter on 23.04.2013, 15.05.2013, 19.07.2016 and 10.01.2018. But the disputes as alleged was not solved and continued, as such cause of action continued, so this complaint is not hit by Limitations and complaint filed is maintainable.
Contd….P/4.
-:4:-
In bill dated 21.03.2013 which is for the periods from 25.11.2012 to 23.02.2013 the previous reading has been mentioned as 1333 and present reading 1393 and units consumed has been shown Zero (0) and adjusted unit has been mentioned as 60 units and bill amount is for Rs. 370/-. This bill has reference to previous amount also. Thereafter from bill dated 11.06.2013 which is for the periods from 23.02.2013 to 27.05.2013 the units consume has been mentioned as 168 and previous reading is mentioned as 1393 and present units1561 and thereafter other bill shows units consumed for 46 and for bill dated 11.12.2013 units consumed as Zero (0).
Thus the units consumed before disputed bill and even after disputed bill are within normal range. The disputed bill which is speaks for 703 units consumption is certainly not in accordance with other regular bills.
The OP has not addressed the dispute when the complainant made a reference for the abnormal bill. However OP has taken initiative after complainant made an application on 19.07.2016 and OP installed a check meter with the existing meter and as per OP the reading of the units for the periods from 26.07.2016 to 31.07.2016 was same in existing meter and also in check meter which was two (2) units consumed during said period. As per OP complainant also sign on the same check report. The OP has annexed a copy of the said check report and also a report dt. 15.01.2018 showing shop was closed.
Now as per OP when check meter was installed and checked with existing meter and no fault in reading of units has taken place, so existing meter cannot be said to be giving false reading or more reading. As per OP the unit might have been excess due to internal consumer wiring or accumulation of unit.
If accumulation of units is considered then the reading taken by men of OP shows that it has been maintained regularly, so there cannot be accumulations of unit. If there is any allegation for faulty wiring then OP could have told this to complainant after check when first complaint was made or could have advised the complainant for check of internal wiring but he has not done so.
Even reading as provided at the time of check meter with existing meter are considered then two units were consumed from 26.07.2016 to 31.07.2016 which were within six days and if this consumption is considered on monthly and quarterly basis then the bill provided by OP regularly will tally rather will not be excessive. The OP has failed to clarify by positive evidence as to what happened for huge consumption of 703 units in a quarter.
OP has not clarified that when complaint for excess units
Contd….P/5.
-:5:-
reading was made in January, 2013 then why a check meter was not installed at that time, rather it was done after passing of three years.
Considering the circumstances it appears that there is deficiency in service upon the complainant by OP regarding issue of bill dated 03.01.2013 for 703 units. The consumed unit should have been in the range of previous to this disputed bill or even after periods of this disputed bill and which average could have been within limits of approximately 200 units average for three months in this circumstances the OP is required to submit correct electricity bill for 200 units approximately for the disputed bill after making necessary correction. As the complainant has written so many times to the OP and lastly has filed this case, so OP is required to pay compensation to the complainant and also litigation costs.
In the result complainant succeeds to prove deficiency in service from the side of OP and is entitled for part relief.
Thus all the points are discussed and considered and decided and complainant is entitled for part relief.
Hence it is ordered,
That complaint case no. C.C. 05 (S) of 2018 is allowed on contest with costs. The OP is directed to correct the disputed bill dated 03.01.2013 and furnished a corrected bill to the petitioner for 200 units within a period of 30 days from the date of this order and complainant shall pay the said bill to the OP within 15 days after receipt of the corrected bill, if not paid earlier and if the disputed bill has been paid then OP shall return the excess amount of bill to the petitioner within said period.
The complainant is entitled for an amount of Rs. 15,000/- towards suffering and harassment and Rs. 10,000/- for litigation costs from the OP.
The OP is directed to pay the above amount within 45 days to the complainant and in default complainant shall be entitled for interest thereafter @ 10 % per annum till the amount is realized. In default the complainant shall be entitled to execute the order as per law.
Let a copy of this judgment/ final order be given to the parties free of cost.
