Judgment & Order  dt. 27.02.2017

            This is the complaint filed u/s 12 of the CP Act, 1986, whereby the complainant has prayed for passing a direction for rectification of bill, damage, compensation etc. against the OPs (hereinafter to be referred to as the Electric Department).

            Notices have been served upon the OPs; but the OPs have not turned up to contest the case. Hence, ex-parte hearing.

            In the instant case, dispute is raised against the particular electricity bill dt. 6.9.2016, which is marked as Ext.5/6. The grievance of the complainant is that the electricity department i.e. the OPs did not send the said bill to him and when the bill was sent to him on repeated request, he came to know that the exorbitant amount of Rs.37,313/- has been demanded from him by the OPs. So, the complainant has prayed for correction of the said bill and also for damage as well as compensation for mental pain and harassment.

   The complainant has filed an affidavit in chief and has been examined as PW-1. Documents admitted in evidence on behalf of the complainant are marked as Ext. nos. 1,2,3,4,5-series, 6,7, 8-series, 9, 10 and last of all, Ext. 11 as detailed in the list of documents kept in the record.

Perused the complaint, the affidavit in chief and documents admitted in evidence. Considered all these in their proper perspective.

DECISION  WITH  REASONS

            An in depth scrutiny of the disputed bill (Ext.5/6) vis-à-vis the yellow card (Ext.4) reveals that there is no consistency between the entry in the yellow card and the entry in bill prepared by the electricity department including the disputed bill i.e. Ext. 5/6. The reading of the meter is taken on the spot by electric department with the help of their

                                                                                                Contd…P/3

employees. As soon as the reading is taken from the meter, an entry to that effect is made on the yellow card by that employee of the department and thereafter the bill is prepared by the department on the basis of reading taken by the department and as mentioned on the yellow card. Coming to the instant case it is found from the disputed bill i.e. Ext. 5/6 that previous reading of the meter was taken on 11.5.2016 and the respective reading on that day was ‘2662’. It is further seen from that disputed bill that the present reading date was 19.8.2016 and present reading of unit was 6903. But the yellow card i.e. Ext.4 does never betray that any reading of meter was taken by the electricity department on 11.5.2916 and 19.8.2016. That apart, meter reading ‘6903’ is seen to have been made in the yellow card on 6.9.2016. How is it possible? Meter reading is seen to have been taken after the preparation of the disputed bill. The present reading of the disputed bill was taken on 19.8.2016, vide the bill (Ext.5/6). This appears to be a gross anomaly and this gross anomaly only explains that the disputed bill was prepared whimsically and it does not have any foundation much less concrete foundation. 

            Negligence has entered into the soul of the OP/ department. They do not understand that they are doing service for the mankind. They do not understand that a citizen of an independent country like ours has some right to information. The yellow card is the gateway to that information; the customer gets the information about the meter readings as soon as the entry in the yellow card is made. Non-entry of, meter reading in yellow card indicates denial of people,s access to information. If information is not provided to innocent people in accordance with rules, there is ample scope to hoodwink the people of the country. Of course, in case of spot billing the maintenance of yellow card is not mandatory. But, this is not a case of spot billing. A perusal of the yellow card i.e. Ext. 4 also goes to reveal that no meter readings was recorded in the yellow card in the period between 28.2.2014 and

                                                                                                Contd…P/4

 27.8.2016 i.e. a long period of more than 2 years. Is it not negligence on the part of OP department? Does it not prove that the administration of the electricity department turned a blind eye to all these mismanagement? No answer is available to these questions and the OP department does not have any guts to answer these questions, having approached the Forum. This is another instance which also goes to strengthen our view that it is gross negligence but not negligence only which has personified in the OPs.

            The complainant has filed all bills for the period from 2014 to 2016 and all bills are marked as Exts. 5-series. Except one bill, which is also under the fire of criticism by the complainant in spite of payment made by him to avoid unnecessary harassment, it is seen from all those bills that the maximum amount as demanded in Ext.5/2 was Rs.2,435/- and this is the maximum amount of all amounts demanded by OP department during the above period. But in the disputed bill, OP department has demanded a highly inflated sum, i.e. Rs.37,313/- from the complainant and on perusal it has already been found that the meter readings of the bill as envisaged therein, are not at all reflected in the yellow card. In the circumstances, we do feel constrained to show that disputed bill i.e. Ext.5 is a hypothetical bill prepared by the department with an oblique motive. There is no mention in yellow card that the meter was defective or that the electricity department is entitled to any outstanding demand from the complainant. This being so, we do say that the disputed bill is a ghost bill and a citizen like the complainant cannot be compelled to pay such a ghost bill. The ghost bill has certainly snatched away mental peace of the complainant and any peace loving citizen of the country is likely to lose his mental peace and compose, if such kind of ghost bill of exorbitant amount is charged against him. The complainant has been a victim; he has also sustained harassment due to malfeasant act of the OP department.

                                                                                                Contd…P/5

            Non-maintenance of yellow card properly, preparation of ghost bill whimsically, non-service of bill on consumers are certainly imperfection in the performance of duty required by law to be strictly adhered to by the OPs i.e. the electricity department in relation to service of supplying electrical energy and as such it is deficiency in service arising out of gross negligence and sheer malfeasance. This deficient and defiant act of the OP No. 1 is established on the evidence of the complainant, which has remained unchallenged and uncontroverted. Also unchallenged and uncontroverted is the evidence of the complainant that he suffered mental agony and harassment due to excessively inflated bill given to him by the OP No. 1 and especially when his grievance against the said bill fell on the deaf ears of the department in spite of his repeated knocking at their door. It is the wearier who is the best person to know where the shoe pincher. The complainant has stated on oath that he had to approach the office of the OP No. 1 for several times, but OP No. 1 did not pay any heed to his grievance. He wrote the letter to OP No. 1, but to no effect. Ext No.8 is the copy of that letter. All these evidences go unchallenged and only establish that the complainant fell a victim to a sort of impiety on the part of OP No. 1. The OP No. 1 must compensate the complainant for mental agony and harassment.

            To sum up, gross negligence of the electricity department is preparing the disputed bill (Ext.5/6) stands proved by empirical evidence on record. The disputed bill appears to be whimsical, hypothetical, baseless and preposterous. It has lost its sheen and efficacy in the blind alley of arbitrariness of the electricity department. The complainant has also suffered a lot mentally due to ghost bill of the OPs. He is found entitled to the relief as hereinafter provided.

            In the result, the case succeeds.

                                                                                                Contd…P/6

Hence, it is

                                                O R D E R E D

          that the complaint case No.28/2016 be and the same is allowed ex-parte partly with costs against the OPs. The OP No. 1 is directed to treat the disputed bill (Ext. 5/6) dt. 6.9.2016 as cancelled and to issue a fresh bill on the basis of the average consumption of preceeding 6 months positively within a week of the receipt of this order and in that case the complainant shall make the payment of the bill within 7 days of the receipt of the bill by him. It is further directed that the OP No. 1 shall pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for whimsical issue of ghost bill whence springs the mental agony and disquietude to the complainant within a month of this order and thereafter he may make endeavour to realize the said amount from the actual delinquent. He may also take necessary step, if he finds that the meter is defective; but he will not be able to disconnect the electric connection of the complainant until all the steps enumerated above are exhausted.

            Let a copy of this order be supplied or sent to the parties concerned free of cost.