District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum
Dakshin Dinajpur, W. Bengal
(Old Sub-Jail Municipal Market Complex, 2nd Floor, Balurghat Dakshin Dinajpur Pin - 733101)
Telefax: (03522)-270013
Present
Shri Sambhunath Chatterjee - President
Miss. Swapna Saha - Member
Shri Siddhartha Ganguli - Member
Consumer Complaint No. 20/2015
Seema Agarwal
W/o Suresh Kumar Agarwala
Marwaripatti (Buri Kali Bari),
Mobile No. 9434187724
P.O. & P.S.: Balurghat,
Dist. Dakshin Dinajpur, Pin -733103. …………………Complainant(s)
V-E-R-S-U-S
1. The A. E. & Station Manager,
Balurghat Customer Care Centre
W.B.S.E.D.C. Ltd.
PO: Beltalapark, PS: Balurghat, Dist.: Dakshin Dinajpur.
2. The Assistant Manager, (P & A),
Dakshin Dinajpur (D) Division,
W.B.S.E.D.C. Ltd.,
PO & PS: Balurghat, Dist.: Dakshin Dinajpur.
3. The Division Engineer & Divisional Manger,
Dakshin Dinajpur (D) Division,
W.B.S.E.D.C. Ltd.,
PO & PS: Balurghat,
Dist.: Dakshin Dinajpur. …………Opposite Party / Parties
For complainant …………… - Shri Bidyut Kr. Roy, &
- Shri Anish Das, Ld. Advs.
For OP Nos. 1, 2 & 3 …………… - Shri Sudip Chatterjee, Ld. Adv.
Date of Filing : 17.03.2015
Date of Disposal : 20.08.2015
Contd…P/2
Judgment & Order dt. 20.8.2015
Facts of the case in brief and that the complainant is a bona fide consumer and she is residing with family members for her domestic consumption. The complainant took the service connection on 11.4.2004. The said meter was installed on 11.4.2004 on the same day another electric connection in the said premises was taken in the name of her sister-in-law namely Suchitra Agarwal. The complainant being a consumer enjoying electricity and she never failed to pay the electricity charge for her electric consumption.
After about three years back the OPs committed mistake by sending the bills against the connection of the complainant by taking the meter reading of another separate connection stands in the name of Suchitra Agarwal. The OPs used to take meter reading from the meter of Suchitra Agarwal, sister-in-law and sent the bills to the complainant similarly the OPs used to prepare bills for that connection taking reading of the complainant’s meter and sent bills interchanging the actual reading. On such untoward happing for sending bills for taking wrong and enormous meter reading, the complainant submitted representation for correction of the error. The complainant on several occasions met the OP but no fruitful result was achieved. Thereafter the OPs sent bills having invoice No.41800053483 dt. 30.4.2014 claiming to be an average basis but on scrutiny it was found exaggerated unit for the period of May, 2014 to July, 2014.
The complainant raised objection but no action was taken by the OPs though, the complainant was assured that the rectification could be made. The complainant stated that she was willful to pay the bill on the basis of the consumption actually consumed by her. The OPs though, assured that the rectified bill would be sent but no such bill was sent. All on a sudden on 14.3.2015 the OPs disconnected the electricity service connection of the complainant without prior intimation. The complainant
Contd…P/3
requested the OPs not to disconnect the connection but the OPs did not pay any heed causing untold suffering of the family members of the complainant.
In view of the said fact the complainant prayed for compensation of Rs.2 lakh and Rs. 1 lakh for damage and for other reliefs.
OPs have contested the case by filing a written version wherein the OPs denied all the material allegations made by the complainant. It is specific plea of the OPs that the complainant is a consumer under Balurghat Customer Care Centre and she consumed the electricity by paying bills. According to policy of the company the old manual meter of every consumer has been changed to new statistical meter. Accordingly old meter of the consumer has been replaced to new meter vide No. T-1196796 on 15.1.2011 and she also paid a bill of changed meter reading as per her consumption.
Meter reading could not take place in time due to non-access in the premises and after some time of installation of the new meter, the meter found stopped due to some technical defect and it was not endorsed by the meter reader in the yellow card due to non-access in the premises, as a result no bill was sent to her and when it came to the knowledge, ultimately a bill amounting to Rs.16,514/- for an estimated unit of 2042 has been generated due to defect of the meter. On the basis of the system generated and as per provision for May to July, 2014 and also a bill amounting to Rs.29,149/- including outstanding Rs.27,697/- for April as an estimated unit of 266 has been generated.
The OPs also filed an additional written version and specifically stated that as the reading status of the meter was not available to the meter reader due to non-access in the building and so subsequently when it came to knowledge to the OPs through meter reader then the old meter was replaced and it was also noted in the bill that meter No. T-1196796 seems to be defective and during the period when the bill
Contd…P/4
was not prepared due to stop meter as defective, so an average bill was sent to her according to system generated and provisions of regulation 3.8.1. Accordingly, bill was sent to her for months of May – July, 2014 for three months calculating the consumption the same meter reading period of last year. The last year meter reading for the period 9.2.2013 to 10.5.2013 was 6066 unit to 8086 unit i.e. 8086 – 6066 = 2019 unit for 90 days. So, observing of last year’s consumption for the said months average bill was raised.
It was stated by the OPs that the said consumption may be varied in different season and different time upon consumption of the consumer as such the last year consumption of the complainant from 10.8.2013 – 9.11.2013 was 9064 to 9843 unit i.e. 779 unit for 90 days and 9.11.2014 – 29.1.2015 consumed unit was 322. So, by following the regulations the OP sent an average bill rightly to the complainant and there was no mala fide intention and the complainant should pay average bill and there is no negligence on the part of OPs and for that reason the case should be dismissed.
On the basis of the pleadings of the respective parties following points are to be determined :-
- Whether the complainant is a bona fide consumer under the OPs?
- Whether the meter was stopped and intimation was given to the OPs?
- Whether the complainant had no access to the meter for reading?
- Whether bill sent by the OPs to the complainant on the basis of an average unit consumed by the complainant, on the basis of the previous’ was wrong mala fide etc.?
- Whether the complainant entitled to get relief as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
All the points are taken together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of the facts.
Contd…P/5
It is the case of the complainant she is a bona fide consumer of the electricity and used to pay bills regularly since the OPs committed mistake in recording meter reading of her sister-in-law and the bill was sent to the complainant and in spite of objection raised by the complainant no rectification was made by the OPs. Ld. Lawyer for the complainant emphasized that a numerous occasions the said fact brought to the notice of the OPs but no action was taken on their behalf. The complainant also stated that several representations were made but no action was taken. Ultimately, while it was found that the meter was not functioning the said fact was also brought to the notice to the OPs but no action was taken on their behalf. The OPs sent a bill dt. 30.4.2014 claiming to be an average basis, on the basis of exaggerated unit for the period from May – July, 2014. They also sent several numerous bills on the succeeding period. Though, the complainant raised objection but no action was taken on behalf of OPs.
While the complaint was lodged before Assistant Director, Consumer Affairs & Fair Business Practices, Dakshin Dinajpur at Balurghat called the OPs for a meeting which was held, wherein the OPs agreed to send rectified bill for consumption. But the OPs did not send the rectified bill, ultimately when the complainant rushed to the office to the OPs with the current bill amount the OPs declined to receive the amount and asked the complainant to pay the outstanding amount. Ultimately, while it was found that the complainant was not being entertained by the OPs instead of her bona- fide intention to pay bills. The OPs all on a sudden visited the place of complainant and disconnected the electric connection causing untold miseries to the family members to the complainant. In view of the said fact the Ld. Lawyer for the complainant emphasized that illegal act committed by the OPs should be penalized and the electricity connection is to be restored in the premises of the complainant. Ld. Lawyer for the complainant prayed for cost and other damages.
Contd…P/6
Ld. Lawyer for the OPs argued that the complainant is a consumer under Balurghat CCC and she used to pay electric bill and since a policy was adopted by the OPs for replacing of manual meter of every consumer was undertaken and new statistical meter was replaced vide Meter No.T-1196796 on 15.1.2011. The complainant also paid the bill of that changed meter reading as per her consumption. The meter reader could not take the reading in time due to non-access in the premises and installation of the new meter was found stopped due to some technical defects. It was not endorsed by the meter reader in the yellow card due to non–access in the premises as a result no bill was sent in her name and when it came to knowledge of the OPs a bill amounting to Rs.16,514/- for an estimated unit of 2042 was generated due to defective meter on the basis of system generated and as per provision of May – July, 2014 and also a bill amounting to Rs.29,149/- including outstanding Rs.27,697/- as estimated unit of 266 has been generated in the defective meter. Since, meter No. T-1196796 was found defective and the period when bill was not raised due to defective of the meter so, an average bill was sent to the complainant, according to the system generated and provision of regulation 3.8.1 the bill was sent to her in the month of May – July, 2014 for three months calculating the consumption of the same meter reading period of last year. So, observing the last year consumption of average bill was raised.
In view of the said fact Ld. Lawyer for the OPs argued that no illegal act was committed by the OPs and since payment was not made towards outstanding bill amount, the electric connection was disconnected if the bill amount is paid the OPs are duty bound to restore the connection.
Considering the submission of the respective parties it appears that the complainant was a bona fide consumer of the electricity and she is used to pay bills regularly. The dispute arose while the meter
Contd…P/7
reader failed to have access in the premises of the complainant and whenever the meter was found defective. The complainant made several representations and those letters were not properly replied by the OPs. From the materials on record it is found that the bill for the disputed period was sent to the complainant on the basis of average consumption which she enjoyed in respect of previous year for the same period and the bill was prepared accordingly on the basis of average consumption of the said period. Ld. Lawyer for the OPs relied on the regulation 3.6 wherein it has been stated that in 3.6.1 if on inspection by the distribution licensee on its own or on the basis of a complainant of a consumer, 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, consumer shall pay provisionally, for such consumption of electricity for the period during the meter has been suspected to have been defective or defunct, on the basis of average consumption and other parameters for the proceeding and / or succeeding three months or during any previous and / on subsequent period that be may be reasonably comparable before the meter has been found to be defective or defunct. In view of the said provision the OPs sent a bill on the basis of energy consumption during the previous year of the same period. Therefore, the OP has not committed any illegality or irregularity in sending the bills to the complainant demanding the outstanding payment and since the system does not accept the current bill without payment of the outstanding bill amount, bill though the complainant tried to pay for current month could not be accepted. Therefore, from the materials on record we hold that the OPs did not commit any mistake or they had ulterior motive to cause any damage to the complainant or for non-payment of the bill and disconnection of the electricity by the OPs cannot be said to have committed any illegal act against the complainant. Therefore we hold that the complainant will not be entitled
Contd…P/8
to get any relief from this Forum and accordingly the case is disposed of against the complainant.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
that the instant petition of complaint CC No.20 of 2015 is dismissed on contest without cost.
The complainant will not be entitled to get any damage or relief from the OPs. The complainant is directed to pay outstanding amount in three installments. The first is to be paid within 10th day of September, 2015 and if first installment is paid within stipulated period the OPs must restore the electric connection and the complainant must go on paying the balance installment within 10 days each succeeding months, from the months of September, 2015, along with the current bill, if sent by the OPs during that period.
Let a plain copy of this order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost.
Dictated & corrected
………Sd/-….…….
(Sambhunath Chatterjee)
President
We concur,
……Sd/-..…… ………Sd/-……..
(S. Saha) (S. Ganguli)
Member Member
- Date when free copy was issued ……………………
- Date of application for certified copy ……………………
- Date when copy was made ready ……………………
- Date of delivery ……………………
FREE COPY [Reg. 18(6)]
- Mode of dispatch ……………………
- Date of dispatch ……………………
-x-
