Date of Filing: 23-05-2016                                               Date of Final Order: 08-06-2017

Smt. Runa Ganguly, Member.

The brief fact of the complaint as can be gathered from the record is that the Complainant is a bonafied consumer of Opposite party no. 1since last thirty years vide I.D. No.424006665. The connection was in the name of the present Complainant though the brothers of the Complainant also enjoyed electricity from the said connection. Thereafter, in the Month of July, 2015 the other users took new connection for which the load consumption of the old meter decreased. As per consumption the Complainant noticed that he consumed only 48 units during the period 02.07.2015 to 03.09.2015. Thereafter, the Complainant observed that no reading appeared in the meter that seems to him that the meter become defective and the said matter brought to the notice of the O.P. No. 1. The O.P. No. 1 changed the meter accordingly and sent a bill of Rs. 4657/- showing consumed unit 719 for the period November, 2015, December, 2015 and January, 2016 that was huge bill. The Complainant stated that at present Rs. 400/- should be the electric bill per month as per his actual consumption. After decreased his load consumption in his meter the Complainant received a bill for the period February, March and April 2016 showing only 90 unit thereafter how and in what basis the O.P. issued the alleged bill when the meter was not in working condition, the reason best known to them. The Complainant unable to pay the said bill as it is not proper and prayed for rectification of the said bill and other reliefs.

The O.P. No. 1 contested the case by filing W/V and etc. but the O.P. No. 2 did not turn up after receiving the notice for which this case heard ex-parte against the O.P. No. 2.

The O.P. No. 1 in its W/V clearly denied all most all the allegation leveled by the Complainant and stated that the WBSEDCL acted as per guideline of the WBERC. Thus, it has no deficiency in service and prayed for dismissal of the case with cost.

In the light of the contention of both parties, the following points necessarily come up for consideration.

POINTS  FOR  CONSIDERATION

1. Is the Complainant a Consumer as per Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986?

2. Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?

3. Has the Opposite Party any deficiency in service and are they liable in any way?

4. Whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief/reliefs as prayed for?

DECISION  WITH  REASONS

We have gone through the record very carefully, peruse the entire documents in the record also heard the argument advanced by the parties at a length.

Point No.1.

Evidently, the Complainant is a bonafied consumer of the O.Ps who enjoying electricity provided by the O.P. No. 1 since last thirty one yrs. for which we have no hesitation to say that the Complainant is the “Consumer” of the O.P.

Point No.2.

The place of business of both the O.Ps are situated in this district and the value of the present complaint is far less than the prescribed limit. Thus, this Forum has every jurisdiction to try the present case.   

Point No.3 & 4.

Evidently, the Complainant is a bonafied customer/consumer of the O.P. No.1 being I.D. No.424006655.

It is the case of the Complainant that even after decreasing load consumption from July,2015 of his electric meter, the O.P raised huge bill as per previous consumption. The O.P raised bill on the basis of a reading during the period when the energy meter was stopped.

It is the case of the O.P. No.1 that the Complainant prepared a false story. There is no paper to show that the load consumption was reduced. For reduction of load consumption, the Complainant had to fill up of prescribed Form supplied by the O.P. The Complainant never submitted any application to the O.P in prescribed Form. On 15/10/2015 the Complainant filed written complaint before the O.P. No.1 and reported that his meter has been stopped. On 05/11/2015 the staffs of the O.P went to the house of the Complainant to take periodical meter reading and noticed that the meter was in stop condition. Thereafter, the O.P. No.1 prepared the bill for the consumption period from 04.08.2015 to 15.11.2015 as per consumption history of the same period of the previous year and found that in three months (07/08/2014 to 07/11/2014) total consumed unit was 642. This O.P prepared the alleged bill as per guideline of WBERC for which said bill is justified. The Complainant unnecessarily filed the petitions for rectifying the bill but the O.P. No.1 has nothing to do and this O.P has no deficiency in service. Thus, this complaint deserved to be dismissed with cost.

“Annexure-A” goes to show that on and from 05/11/2015 the energy meter was in stop condition and the new meter was connected on 03/12/2015.

On perusal the meter card it appears that on previous period of inspection by the O.P. No. 1 on 05.11.2015 i.e. from 08/05/2015 to 04/08/2015 total consumed unit was (7455 – 7114) 341 unit for three months and on previous six months the consumed unit was (7114 – 6272) 842 unit. Thereafter, the Complainant received the alleged bill dated 18/11/2015 of Rs.4,657/- for the period of November, 2015, December, 2015 and January, 2016. This bill shows previous reading 7455 i.e. appeared in the meter card, but the present reading 8174 is absent because of during that period the electric meter was in stop condition. Then how the O.P calculate 8174 unit as the present reading? The Ld. Agent for the O.P. No.1 in his W/V, evidence on affidavit and also in W/Ar. clearly stated that the O.P. No.1 calculate the said unit as per guideline of WBERC.

On perusal the WBERC guideline it is found that the provisional bill can be calculated in the present scenario not only as per clause 3.6.2 but also 3.6.1. The relevant portion of clause 3.6.1 be read as follows:

“….the meter of a consumer is found defective or defunct for a reason other than theft of electricity as provided in section 135 of the Act and no theft of energy can be reasonably suspected, the consumer shall pay provisionally, for such consumption of electricity for the period during which the meter has been suspected to have been defective or defunct, on the basis of average consumption and other parameters for the preceding and/or succeeding three months or during any previous and/or subsequent period that may be reasonably comparable before the meter has been found to be defective or defunct.”

Though the O.P. NO. 1 prepared the bill as per clause No. 3.6.2 only for their gain. It is evident from the record that the Complainant on 15.10.2015, 29.10.2015, repeatedly reported to the O.P. No. 1 that from July 2015 the consumption of electricity in his meter is decreasing as another electric meter has been installed in the name of his brother. The said application duly received by the O.P. No. 1 but no good and as a result the Complainant received the alleged bill dated 18.11.2015. Further, on  04.12.2015 and on 08.02.2016 the Complainant preferred application for reducing his bill on the aforesaid ground but his all efforts were in vain. On perusal the Meter Card it appears that the O.P. visited the house of the Complainant on 05.11.2015 and remarked that the meter was stopped and thereafter send the said bill of Rs. 4557/- for the period Nov.2015.Dec.2015 and Jan.2016 by not considering the prayer of the Complainant. The O.P. No. 1 calculate the average bill from the previous I year when the connected load was high of the said meter. The  consumption of electricity on the period 08.05.15 to 04.08.15 immediately preceding three months of inspection was 341 unit. The O.P. prepared the provisional bill on the basis of the period of previous twelve months when the electric consumption was so  high. During the course of argument the Ld. Agent for the O.P. No. 1 vehemently argued that the O.P. No. 1 raised the bill as per guideline of WBERC  that was justified and the complainant have to pay the said bill without any discount /rebate.

For proper adjudication of the present dispute it will be well and justified if the O.P. calculate the average bill for the disputed period on the basis of consumption of immediately preceding three months from the date of inspection as per clause 3.6.1 of WBERC guideline.

On considering the averments made by the O.P. No.1 and considering the documents made available in the record the we are in considered opinion that the bill prepared by the O.P. No.1 for the consumption period from 04.08.2015 to 15.11.2015  is not justified and has to be rectified.

In the light of the foregoing discussion, circumstances to the case, together with the attitude and thoughts of the parties in litigation we hold that the O.P. No. 1 had negligent enough by raising huge bill without proper calculation that must be rectified.

The point No. 1-3 are decided in favour of the Complainant. Thus, Complainant is entitled to get reasonable relief. 

Thus, the complaint succeeds.

Hence,

        it is ORDERED that,

                                The present case be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.P. No.1 but in part with cost of Rs.1,000/- and in ex-parte against the O.P. No.2.

The O.P. No. 1 is hereby directed to issue a rectified bill of 341 units for the period Nov.2015. Dec.2015 and Jan.2016 as per clause 3.6.1 of WBERC guideline and send the same to the Complainant immediately. The Complainant is also directed to make payment of the said bill after receiving the same without any delay.

No compensation is awarded in favour of the Complainant.        

The entire order shall be complied with by the O.Ps jointly and/or severally within 30 days i/d the O.Ps shall have to pay Rs.25/- for each days delay and the amount so accumulated shall be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account.

Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied to the parties concerned by hand/by Registered Post with A/D forthwith, free of cost, for information & necessary action, as per rules.

Dictated and corrected by me.