This is a case under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Brief facts of the complainant’s case is that, the complainant is a consumer of electricity, supplied by W.B.S.E.D.C.L. at his previous residence at Nawa Para, Garal Bari having Consumer I.D. No. 422056246 and shop 402190456. But after his change of residence since 15.02.2014, electricity bill against the above Consumer I.D. No. 422056246 was being raised from time to time. In this respect he had intimated W.B.S.E.D.C.L. on 23.05.2017 and had also deposited the dis-connection fee along with the previous electricity bill pertaining to May 2016 to October 2016 amounting to Rs. 4669/- (Rupees Four Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Nine Only) and dis-connection fee Rs. 100/- (Rupees One Hundred Only). Even in the Consumer I.D. No. 402190456 the billing was unfair and erroneous.
He had therefore, filed a case before the Assistant Director, Consumer Affairs and Fair Business Practices, Jalpaiguri Regional Office, but could not be disposed for which reason he filed this case before this Commission. Hence this case.
O.P’s. have appeared to contest the claim made by the complainant, by filing Written Version wherein they have stated that the complainant had two(2) connection being Consumer I.D. No. 422056246 and shop 402190456. They have admitted that after dis-connection the complainant had paid a bill of Rs. 4669/- (Rupees Four Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Nine Only) and Rs. 100/- (Rupees One Hundred Only) on 22.012.2017 for Consumer I.D. No. 422056246 and Rs. 370/- (Rupees Three Hundred Seventy Only) on 12.08.2013. It is also stated that an amount of Rs. 3589/- (Rupees Three Thousand Five Hundred Eighty Nine Only) had been claimed as L.P.S.C. due to late payment of outstanding dues. That apart the Data base showed an outstanding of Rs. 5986/- (Rupees Five Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty Six Only) for the period May 2018 to October 2019. On physical inspection on 04.04.2022 it was found that the meter reading showed 5615 units. Therefore, a new bill of Rs. 15515/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Five Hundred Fifteen Only) was generated for the consumption period 26.07.2019 to 04.04.2022 taking the total dues to Rs. 21501/- (Rupees Twenty One Thousand Five Hundred One Only).
As regards Consumer I.D. No. 402190456 which is a commercial connection and on physical verification on 04.04.2022, the meter reading was 298 units. Data base also showed outstanding dues of Rs. 770/- (Rupees Seven Hundred Seventy Only) for the consumption period October 2019 to March 2020 and a new bill was generated for Rs. 1641/- (Rupees One Thousand Six Hundred Forty One Only) for the consumption
period 24.12.2019 to 04.04.2022 taking the total dues to Rs. 2411/- (Rupees Two Thousand Four Hundred Eleven Only).
Since the complainant did not finally appear, the case was taken up for disposal on merits. Since the Consumer I.D. No. 402190456 is a commercial connection the same cannot be dealt with in this Commission. Therefore, only the dispute regarding Consumer I.D. No. 422056246 is being taken up for discussion. The complainant’s main allegation with regard to the above connection is that the complainant had shifted from the premises for which the above connection was allotted in the year 2014, but still bills were being generated, in spite of the above connection being dis-connected. On the other hand, the O.P’s. contention is that the bills were generated with L.P.S.C. for late payment of outstanding amount of Rs. 4669/- (Rupees Four Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Nine Only) and the data base also showed outstanding dues of Rs. Rs. 5986/- (Rupees Five Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty Six Only) for the consumption period May 2018 to October 2019. That apart on physical verification on 04.04.2022 the meter reading had shown 5615 units.
In this regard, the meter reading and the Data base reading also showed that the Consumer I.D. No. 422056246 was alive and consumption was being done from the above connection. Therefore, with the complainant unable to show that the meter, with regard to the above Consumer I.D. was defective, the onus is upon the complainant to show that the meter was not alive and therefore, the reading was erroneous, considering that he had business, located within the same premises. On the other hand there is no reason to dis-believe the O.P’s. contention, as it is not only a matter of record, but there is no ground taken by the complainant, that the complainant was being victimized by the OP Company. As a result the case is liable to be dismissed.
It is therefore,
O R D E R E D
That the case be and the same is dismissed on merits but without costs considering the facts and circumstances of the case.
Copies of the Judgment be delivered free of cost to both the sides.
