Judgment & Order  dt. 08.06.2017

             An electricity bill dt. 18.4.2015 drawn up by the OP-department, demanding a sum of Rs.42,641/- from the complainant, has galvanized the complainant to file the instant case praying for, among other things, compensation for mental pain and harassment caused to him by the OPs.

            The facts giving rise to the instant case may be summed up as follows.

            The complainant is a domestic consumer of the OPs and he was served with an electricity bill dt. 18.4.2015 bearing invoice No. 416002545998 and thereby the electricity department i.e. OPs demanded an abnormally high amount of Rs.42,641/- including outstanding dues of Rs.410/- from the complainant. The meter also stopped recording the consumption for a certain period and therefore, it was suspected by the complainant that the meter was defective. So, he submitted an application before the OPs on 14.3.2013 for removal of the defective meter, if so found. But no step whatsoever was taken by the OPs for removal of the meter; rather they slapped a bill bearing invoice No.416002545998 upon the complainant and thereby threatened the complainant to disconnect his electric line unless the payment was made within the due date. Now, the complainant has filed the instant case alleging that the aforesaid bill is fictitious and hypothetical and the OPs have negligently drawn up the bill in order to harass him. He has filed the instant case praying for, among other things, payment of a sum of Rs.10,000/- for mental pain and a further sum of Rs.40,000/- for harassment caused deliberately to him by the OPs.  Hence, the case.

            The OPs have resisted the case by filing a written statement wherein it is contended inter alia by them that the bill disputed by the complainant is correctly prepared on the basis of the consumption recorded by the employee of their department and that the complainant is therefore, bound to make payment for that bill. It is further submitted by them that one check-meter was installed on 23.12.2015 in the premises of the complainant after having got the application of the complainant and the said check-meter was removed on 23.12.2016. From the meter recording of the check-meter, it was found that the old-meter was not defective and that whatever recording it made was correct. According to them, the complainant has no reason to bring the instant case against them and that the case should be dismissed in limini.

            Upon the averments of the parties the following issues are formulated for proper adjudication of the matter in disputes.

Issues:

(1) Are the OPs guilty of deficiency in service in preparing the electricity bill dt. 18.4.2015 i.e. the disputed bill?  

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

Evidence of the parties

            The complainant has filed an affidavit-in-chief and has also got himself examined as PW-1. The documents admitted in evidence on behalf of the complainant are marked as Ext. Nos.1-series, 2-series, 3, 4 and, 5 detailed in the list of documents kept in the record. On the other hand, OPs have filed some documents which are marked as Ext. Nos. A and B, also detailed in the list of documents kept in the record.

DECISION  WITH  REASONS

Issue Nos. 1 & 2:

            Discussions on both issues are synchronized for the sake of convenience. The dispute in the instant case revolves round a single electricity bill which is marked as Ext.1. The allegation of the complainant is that this bill is fictitious, arbitrary and hypothetical and it does not tally with the entries made in meter card or yellow-card. A further grievance of the complainant is that the meter of his house is suspected to be defective and therefore, he has lodged an application before the OP-department for testing the correctness of the meter. But, the OP-department did not take any step to verify whether the meter is correct or not. In the face of such submission of the complainant as referred to above, it is to be seen first whether the meter of the complainant is defective or not. According to the submission made by the Ld. Lawyer appearing for the OP-department, a check-meter was placed and allowed to run side-by-side with the existing meter of the complainant’s house and it has been found that the existing meter of the complainant’s house is not defective. A copy of yellow-card of the check-meter is filed herein on behalf of the OP-department and the same is marked as Ext. ‘B’. On perusal of Ext. ‘B’, it is revealed that the check-meter was installed on 23.12.2016 and removed on 30.12.2016. By this period, it is found that only 15 units were consumed. On the other hand, the old existing meter also showed the consumption of 15 units only within that period i.e. from 23.12.2016 to 30.12.2016. Taking all these facts into consideration, we feel no hesitation to say that the existing meter of the complainant’s house is not at all defective and it has been recording consumption of electricity properly and correctly.

            Now about the correctness of the disputed bill which is marked as Ext.1. But, before embarking on any discussion on the point, it should be made clear that the entry in the yellow-card is the foundation stone of the electricity bill prepared by the electricity department. Maintenance of the meter card which is commonly known as yellow-card is not a mere formality. Maintenance of it ensures transparency and thus, acts as a check on the malfeasant act of unscrupulous person. Regulation 3.2.1 of West Bengal State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code) Regulations, 2013 lays down that the bills shall be so transparent as to enable the consumer to know and understand how much he is paying and what he is paying for. This regulation reveals the importance and objects of maintenance of yellow-card, which is to ensure transparency. Every consumer has a right to information and denial of such right to him is nothing but gross injustice. From gross injustice springs gross exploitation and regard being had to all these, it has been stated in the abovementioned Regulation that the transparency can be ensured only by allowing the consumer to know and understand how much he is paying and what for. So, we reiterate here at the cost of repitition that the entries in the yellow-card furnishes the foundation stone upon which stands the edifice of electricity bills and if electricity bills are not prepared on the basis of entries made in the yellow-card, those bills can never stand to reason and as such those bills can be expressed as ghost bills, fictitious bills. Swindling of money from the consumers on the basis of the bills of such ilk is tantamount to plunders of money by having adopted unscrupulous and dubious method. There is provision in Regulation 3.2.2 which requires, among others, some particulars to be mentioned in the bill and these include “reading date, present and previous”. “Meter reading, present and previous” etc. Let us see now, whether disputed bill that is Ext.1 has been prepared by the OP-department in due observance of the spirit of the Regulations as pointed out above. The OP-department has charged an abnormally high amount, that is, Rs.42,641/- from the complainant for the month of Nov.2014, Dec. 2014 and Jan.2015. Previous reading date and present reading date as mentioned in the disputed bill are 18.7.2014 and 13.4.2015 respectively and the meter reading on those dates are ‘1614’ and ‘6927’ also respectively. These entries of Ext.1 must be on the basis of the entries of yellow-card which is marked as Ext.5. But, upon scrutiny of these two documents i.e. the disputed bill and the yellow-card, it is found that the entries in the disputed bill in respect of meter reading and their respective dates do never tally with their entries in the yellow-card. There is no entry of date ‘18.7.2014’ in yellow-card. Similarly the entry of meter reading ‘1614’ as mentioned in the disputed bill does not have any place in the yellow-card. There is no entry of present reading date ‘13.4.2015’ as mentioned in the disputed bill against the entry of meter reading ‘6927’ as appearing in the disputed bill, in the yellow-card, whereas entry of meter reading ‘6927’ is made against the date ‘3.4.2015’ in the yellow-card and entry of meter reading ‘6944’ is made against the date ‘13.4.2015’ in that card. So, it is found that the relevant entry of meter reading and meter reading dates do never agree with their entries in the yellow-card and taking this anomaly into consideration, we make no bones to say about that the disputed bill is not properly made by the OP-department and that it is fictitious, arbitrary and hypothetical bill.

            It is not only proved that the OP-department is negligent in preparing the electricity bill. It is also found proved that the records maintained by the OP-department in their office in connection with data necessary for preparation of electricity bills are not also maintained properly and that they are also maintained in sheer whimsical manner. To substantiate the genuineness of the disputed bill one document titled “Billing view of installation” has been produced before the Forum on behalf of OP-department and the same is marked as Ext. ‘A’. The meter reading has been shown against the respective reading dates in this document as Ext. ‘A’ and the bills have been issued from time to time on the basis of entries of these documents. A minute perusal of these entries in Ext. ‘A’ exposes its hollowness to the surface. Some of the dates and the meter reading units are mentioned below for more clarification of our point of discussion.

            There is no entry of meter reading ‘689’ and its respective date ‘2.11.2012’ in yellow-card. That apart, there is also not noting of any entry in yellow-card from 5.2.2013 to 18.7.2014 as pointed above. Least said is better. But we cannot but say that all these papers i.e. Ext. ‘A’ and Ext. 1 i.e. the disputed bill seem to be nothing but abaracadabra. Upon these entries of Ext. ‘A’ the bills have been issued by the OP-department and it can be easily imagined by any one how the common consumers are made scape-goat day-by-day in the hands of OP-department.

            It has already been discussed that the disputed bill is a fake bill issued whimsically by the OP-department. It has no rational basis and it has not been prepared in accordance with guidelines of the Regulations of Electricity Department. It has been prepared in gross negligent manner by the OP-department and any act of such negligent discharge of duty only establishes deficiency in service to which the complainant has been subjected. Who is responsible for swindling money from innocent consumers by issuing fake bill? It is none but the OPs whose duty is to maintain an effective surveillance over the entire mechanism and thus to ensure transparency in their transaction with the public. It is their sole responsibility and the buck stops here. In order to stem the rot that has made its insidious in-road into the administration of OP-department, resulting in gross deficiency in service for which the sufferings of the consumers like the complainant are all the more poignant, both physically and mentally, a heavy amount of compensation should be imposed upon them so that the trend of issuing ghost bill on hypothetical data may be buckled in future.

            In the result, the case succeeds in part.

            Hence it is.

                                                O R D E R E D

            that the case be and the same is allowed on contest in part  against the OPs with costs, which is quantified at Rs.2,000/-.

            The OPs who are jointly and severally liable, are hereby directed not to give any effect to the disputed electricity bill dated 18.4.2015, invoice No.416002545998, whereby a sum of Rs.42,641/- is demanded from the complainant and to issue a quarterly fresh bill strictly on the basis of entries made in the yellow-card (Ext. No.5) within 15 days of this order and if such bill is issued the complainant will make payment of the bill within 7 days of the receipt of the bill and the OP-department will make adjustment with bill of any amount if paid earlier by the complainant. The OP-department is also directed to make payment of a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) as compensation for mental and physical harassment caused to the complainant along with the cost of litigation i.e. Rs.2,000/- within a month of this order, failing which the compensation amount will bear interest @12% p.a. till the date of full realization of the said amount and they i.e. the OPs will not be able to disconnect the connection of the complainant, if the bill is paid by him accordingly.

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