Judgement passed by Sri Swades Ranjan Ray, President on 07.06.2019.

This  case has been filed by the complainant with a prayer for  the reliefs against the OP WBSEDCL, Chaitanyapur Branch, as made in the prayer portion of the  complaint.

The case of the complainant in short is that he is a bona fide customer of electricity under the OP vide Consumer ID No. 224039961 Meter No.ST506575 which he maintains for his livelihood. The complainant used to pay the electric bill regularly as per meter reading and at an average cusumed 300-400 units since long. Suddenly on and from 02.04.2018 the complainant noticed that the meter was running abnormally whenever he started the motor of the rice mill. The complainant lodged a written complaint before the OP on 13.04.2018 regarding the defect of the meter and prayed for changing the meter. On 18.04.2018 staff of the OP inspected the meter and verbally told the complainant that the meter was defective. Thereafter the complainant made a prayer for change of the meter. It is the further case of the complainant  that prior to the meter reading as on 23.03.2018 the meter reading was 60060 but presently before end of Aprilk,2018 the reading shows 64996  i.e 4927 units which was absurd and beyond the capacity of the meter. On the basis of this units, the Op sent bill for a sum of Rs.40,000/-. On 21.04.2018 the complainant made a written representation  before the Higher Authority  of the OP but the OP did not take any steps for changing the mater or to revise the fictitious bill amount of Rs.40,000/-.  It is the further case of the complainant that average meter reading was 300-400 per month but the disputed bill amount was Rs.40,000/- which was absurd and abnormal. Hence, this case.

The OP appeared and contested the complaint case by filing writt4en version and prayed for dismissal of the case on various grounds.

It is the specific case of the OP that as per complaint of the complainant before the Op the Op inspected the industrial premises of the complainant and checked the mater on 18.04.2018 at 4.00 PM and found the meter was normal and pulse was OK. But the complainant denied the fact and refused to sign in the inspection report. Thereafter the complainant made another application on 23.04.2018 and on the basis of said application, staff of the Op on 03.05.2018 went to the premises of the complainant  but the door of his industrial premises was locked. Thereafter the OP again went on 20.03.2018 for the same purpose  but again staff of the OP found the door of the industrial premises of the complainant under lock and key. This happened for last one year. Thereafter on 12.05.2018 staff of the OP went to the industrial premises of the complainant along with SLP unit of Purba Medinipur Region, WBSEDCL  to check the meter by downloading the meter data. In presence of the complainant the analyzing of the downloading data of the meter was done  and it was found that the meter was running Op  and the S & LP suggested  for enhancing the contractual load demand.  This time also the complainant refused the report and denied to sign the inspection report and as such the inspection report was attacked in front of the meter box duly signed by the inspection team and witnesses of local person.

On the basis of the above pleadings of the parties the issued required consideration is whether the case is maintainable and whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for.

                                                Decision with Reasons.

Perused the complaint on affidavit and also the written version filed on affidavit. Seen the documents filed by the parties and also perused the questionnaires and  reply thereto filed in record.

              Heard the arguments advanced by both the parties.

            In this case it appears that this is a case of affidavit versus affidavit. In such a situation I find that there is conflict between the affidavit of the complainant and that of the OP. For rendering equitable justice, on careful perusal of the records I find that there is great fluctuation in meter reading as mentioned in the complaint. On the other hand the Op claims on the basis of repeated inspection that the meter was OK. It is very much difficult for this Forum to totally deny the fluctuation of the meter reading as is found from the case of the complainant and also  supported by the bill and meter reading card filed by the complainant.

            Under such circumstances for the ends of justice the complaint case may be allowed in part which would be fit and proper to serve purpose of both sides.

            The case is thus allowed in part.

            Both the issues are decided accordingly.

            Hence, it is ordered,

            That the complainant is directed to make payment of Rs.12,000/- out of Rs.40,000/- as claimed by the OP  within one month from the date of this order and on receiving such payment the OP  is directed to replace the meter of the industrial premises of the complainant within one month from the receipt of the amount as aforesaid.

            If the rice mill in question is still in running condition, the charge should be made on an average of 400 units every month till replacement of the alleged defective meter along with enhancement of the load capacity.

            There will be no order of compensation or litigation cost in view of the discussion as aforesaid.

            Let copy of the judgment be supplied to both the parties free of cost.S