Judgment & Order  dt. 17.10.2017

            Unnerved and unsatisfied with the electric bill of excessive amount, the complainant has come up before this Forum with the filing of instant complaint u/s 12 of the CP Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs in preparing electric bill for the period from 28.3.2017 to 26.6.2017. The facts of the case may be epitomized as follows.

The complainant is a domestic consumer having consumer I.D. No.433151094, Service Connection No. 39513/D and Meter No.LL0423798. Ever since the installation of meter in his house, the complainant has been paying all the electric bills as and when given to him by the OPs from time to time and the consumption of the electricity was so far hovering between 100 units and 150 units. Problem erupted only when the OPs sent a bill to the complainant and thereby demanded Rs.7,392/- showing consumption as 907 units for the period from 28.3.2017 to 26.6.2017. According to the complainant, the meter was defective during the aforesaid period and the OP-department should have prepared a bill on the basis of average consumption for the previous months of the said period. But, this was not done by the OPs and it is alleged to be deficiency in service on the part of OPs in utter disregard of the Regulation of the Department. The bill is alleged to be excessive, arbitrary, fictitious and fabricated. So, the complainant has prayed for cancellation of the said bill, compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental pain, agony and harassment and also for replacement of defective meter. Hence, the case.

The OPs have been contesting the case by filing a written statement wherein the facts of the meter being defective is admitted. According to the OPs, the bill for the aforesaid period was prepared on the basis of consumption for the similar period of the previous year i.e. from 26.3.2016 to 26.6.2016 (927 units) in accordance with the regulation of the department. To them, no deficiency in service as alleged has been committed on their part in so far as the preparation of the alleged disputed bill is concerned. The further averment of them is that the new meter has been installed in the house of the complainant on 18.7.2017 having replaced the old one and as there is no deficiency in service on their part, as alleged by the complainant, the case should be dismissed in limini.

            Upon the averments of both the sides the following points are formulated for proper adjudication of the matter in dispute.

Points for determination:

1. Are the OPs liable for deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant ?

2. Is the complainant entitled to get relief as prayed for?

Evidence of the parties

            The complainant has filed an affidavit-in-chief along with some document as detailed in the list of documents kept in the record. On the other hand, the OPs have filed one copy of electric bill relating to the period from 26.3.2016 to 26.6.2016, vide at Page-103, which is also kept in record.

DECISION  WITH  REASONS

Point Nos. 1 & 2:

            Ld. Lawyer appearing for the complainant has contended that the disputed bills contains previous reading date (28.3.2017) with consumption unit being 13,536 units and present reading date (26.6.2017) with consumption unit being 14,443 units, which entry by itself proves that the bill is fictitious and fabricated. According to him, the meter is defective since 26.6.2017 and it is so noted in the yellow card of the OP-department. If the meter is defective, unit consumption can never be collected by the employee of the OP-department. But, the consumption unit i.e. 14,443 units is seen to have been recorded by the OP-department on 26.6.2017 – the date on which the meter is shown to be defective in the yellow card of the department. So, this entry alone and alone proves, as goes his submission, that the bill is fictitious and fabricated. It is further also contended on behalf of the complainant that the OP-department cannot pick and choose a particular period of the previous year of the disputed bills for the preparation of the bill and in doing so, they have not acted properly, lawfully and reasonably. They should have prepared the bill on the basis of average consumption of 3 (three) months just prior to the period of disputed bill. The period which has been taken as the basis for preparation of bill i.e. from 26.3.2016 to 26.6.2016 can never be reasonably accepted for preparation of bill for the disputed period. The grill work was going on at that time in the house of the complainant and therefore, the electric bill rose to a certain height at that period. The consumption of that period can never be accepted as the basis for the preparation of the disputed bill after expiry of the period of one year. The disputed bill is not only fictitious and fabricated but also is irrational and should therefore be cancelled.

            Ld. Lawyer appearing for the OP-department has contended that the electric department has prepared disputed bill on the basis of consumption of similar period in the previous year in terms of the Provisions of Regulation and that there being no deficiency in service on the part of the OP-department, the complainant is not entitled to get relief as prayed for.

            It is admitted fact that the electric meter of the complainant went defective from 26.6.2017. The disputed bill vide Page No.131 of the record, relates to the period from 28.3.2017 to 26.6.2017. In this period the electric meter was admittedly defective. Now, the question which arises for consideration is how the electric bill will be prepared in case of defective meter which is not displaying correct amount of consumption of energy. The answer is available in Regulation 3.8.1 of WBERC (Electricity Supply Code) Regulations 2013. Regulation 3.8.1 has given two options to the electric department for preparation of bill in case of unusual variation of the meter reading on the basis of the following –

1. Energy consumption for last 6 (six) months; and
2. Consumption of similar period of the last year.

In the light of aforesaid Provision of Regulation it is to be seen whether the disputed bill is correctly prepared or not. The disputed bill relates to the period from 28.3.2017 to 26.6.2017 and prior to this period was winter season during which period consumption of electric energy became normally less than the consumption in the rest of the period of the year. So, the period of winter season can never be comparable to disputed period as being “similar period” in the year for the purpose of preparation of the bill in case of defective meter. This being so, the 1^st option of the Regulation as pointed out above in Clause ‘(a)’ cannot reasonably be acted upon to fulfill purpose and spirit of the Provision of Regulation. So, the OP-department is left with 2^nd option as mentioned above in Clause ‘(b)’ and it is found that the disputed bill has been prepared on the basis of consumption as recorded during the period from 26.3.2016 to 26.6.2016. It was 927 units in that period in 2016; the period was also in summer season. The period to the disputed bill is also falls in summer season and the estimated unit of this period is 907 units. The unit i.e. 907 unit is not calculated on the basis of meter reading as mentioned in the disputed bill; the present meter reading i.e. 14,443 units as mentioned in the bill is nothing but the result of addition of estimated unit (907) with previous meter reading i.e. 13,536 units. Estimated unit of 907 units is unit consumed by the complainant during the similar period in the previous year. Ld. Lawyer appearing for the complainant has contended that grill work was going on in the house of the complainant in that period of the previous year. There is neither any plea nor any evidence within four-corners of the case record that the grill work was going on during that period in the house of the complainant. The complainant could have filed the Cash Memo or other documents to show that the grills were purchased by him that time or labour charges were paid that time. In absence of any such material, we feel very much difficult to subscribe to the above submission of the complainant. A new meter has already been supplied to the complainant by the OP-department.

In view of above discussion as pointed out above, it is found that the disputed bill has been lawfully and reasonably prepared by the OP-department in observance of the Provisions of Regulations and therefore, we are the last person to say that the OPs are guilty of deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant.

In the result, the case fails.

Hence,

                                                O R D E R E D

            that the Consumer Complaint case be and the same is  dismissed on contest against the OPs without costs.

            Let a plain copy of this order be furnished to the parties concerned forthwith free of cost.