SMT. BANDANA ROY, PRESIDENT,

            The gist of the complaint case -  Since 2011 the complainant is a bona fide customer under the OP. The complainant applied for a three phase line but at the time of installation he was provided  by the OP with a single phase line with the assurance that three phase will be  substituted whenever it would be available.  Subsequently, being informed by a staff of the OP, the complainant on 07.07.2015 applied for a three phase meter and on 01.02.2016 the OP installed the three phase meter at the premises of the complainant. Thereafter as per bill of the OP, the complainant paid a bill amount of Rs. 4970/- on 01.02.2016. On 07.0.2016 the complainant got an electric bill for an amount of Rs. 90,321/- which stunned him. When the complainant raised objection against such an absurd bill, the OP assured him not to pay the same and promised to sent rectified bill of correct amount. But till 04.03.2017 the OP did not rectify the said amount, on the contrary, sent another bill for an amount of Rs. 1,33,807/- without taking any further meter reading. The OP thus harassed the complainant to a great extent and when he contacted in the office of the OP, they used abusive languages and also threatened to disconnect the line if  the  bill amount  is not paid  in full by the time fixed

            Under the above circumstances, the complainant has filed this complaint with a prayer for direction upon the Ops to send correct bill after taking proper meter reading and to rectify the bill amount dated 07.02.2016 and 04.03.2017 and other reliefs.

            The OP  WBSEDCL Khejuri CCC filed written version and contested the case and prayed for dismissal of the complaint on various grounds.

            The specific case of these OPs that the complainant is a customer under this OP. His consumer ID No. 223210196 since 14.02.2011. The single phase meter was replaced on 31.01.2016 with new meter No. GX 16103 after availability of three phase meter. The meter reading of the old meter of the complainant was 9836 and when it was upgraded with three phase, the final reading came to 29508 ( 9836 x 3). The OP sent bill for consumption of  20548 units ( 29508 – 8960 unit).  The consumer Gurudas Mishra claimed that his e-bill for the period 05.09.2015 to 30.01.2016 was wrong but his bill was found OK due to the above mentioned reasons. As the complainant did not pay the amount of bill, the OP send Memo No. KJR/LTR/1332 dated 24.03.2018 stating that disconnection may be made in case of non-payment of arrear bill amount. But till date the complainant has not made any payment. The bill of his new meter was regenerated as on 27.03.2018 with reasons- Normal 7264, Peak – 1747 and off Peak – 3054 amounting to Rs. 138090/-. But the complainant has not made any payment of Rs 1,40,629/-.

Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances the OP prays for dismissal of the complaint.           

            On the pleadings of the parties as above, the following issues need be considered (1) whether the case is maintainable and whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for.

                                                                                     DECISION WITH REASONS. .

Perused the complaint, the written version of the OPs, the affidavit in-chief of the complainant, questionnaires by the OPs and reply by the complainant. Perused the documents filed by the parties. Heard the argument as advanced by the Ld. Advocate for both sides. Considered.

The  point of maintainability is taken up first for consideration and decision.

With reference to several reference such as 2013 (8) SCC, 491 and others, the ld. advocate for the OP submitted that  complaint against the assessment U/Sec 126  of the 2003 Act is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum - words  and Phrases – “Consumer” “commercial purpose”-Electricity Act 2003 Ss 126, 127, 135 to 140 and 153. Availing services for commercial purpose do not fall within meaning of “Consumer “and cannot be ‘ complainant’ for the purpose of filing a  ‘complaint’’ before the Consumer Forum.

It appears that the very phrase ‘ consumer’ with reference to the I.E Act has not been raised before this Forum in the written version filed by the complainant. Secondly,  the complainant has stated in para 2 of the complaint that he is a bona fide consumer of Electricity  under Tariff Class-C (A) at his STW premises at the above noted address which he runs for maintaining his livelihood since 2011 under the OP. This statement and fact has not been challenged by the OP in the written version and materials on record also does not suggest that the complainant is not a consumer under the OP. 

Hence, we are of the view that the case is maintainable as it is established that the complainant is a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

The complainant’s grievance is that the complainant applied for a three phase meter during his application for taking the connection but he was provided with a single phase meter on the ground of non availability of three phase meter. After four years one of the staff of the OP who came to take meter reading asked the complainant for applying for three phase meter which was at that time at the stock of the OP. Thereafter on 07.07.2015 the complainant applied and he was provided with a three phase meter on 01.02.2016. Subsequently energy bill was paid  by the complainant  on 01.02.2016 as per OP’s demand to the tune of Rs. 4970/-. According to the complainant, thereafter he was paying the bills a little more or less of average to that tune. The complainant expected to get lower amount of bill as his meter was elevated to three phase  in place of single phase. On 07.02.2016the complainant got a bill for an amount of Rs. 90,321/- which was just after the installation of three phase meter which according to the complainant was sent without taking any meter reading.  The complainant asserts that he never consumed such huge amount of energy at any point of time.

The complainant has filed affidavit in chief to which the OP cross-examined by  putting some questions. The first question was whether the connection was made under Tariff C(A) at STW premises on 14.022011 vide consumer Id No.  223210196 and meter No. G103938. The complainant answered  in the positive. The second question was whether the single phase line was replaced with three phase meter on 31.01.2016 with new meter No. GX 16163. The answer was also in positive.  The third question – whether the complainant challenged the meter reading  of the OP. The complainant answered that he had challenged the meter reading every times. Question No. 4 was whether the old meter reading was 9836 units? The complainant answered that he could not recollect. The question no 5 was whether the complainant filed any application  before the Electric Inspector or any other authority under the Provision of IE Act for the alleged meter reading ? The complainant answered that he could not recollect. The question No. 6 – whether the complainant has challenged the old meter reading ? The complainant answered that he had challenged. Question no 7 whether the complainant had challenged the e-bill meter reading after three phase installation? The complainant answered that he had challenged.

According to Section 3 of the C P Act 1986, there  is no bar  to come co Consumer Court  for filing a complaint before the Consumer Forum even when the complainant has not challenged  the electric bill before the Electric Inspector under the I E Act.

There is no inspection report filed by the OP after installation of the three phase connection which suggests that the bill can be raised from Rs. 4970/- to Rs. 90,321/- after installation of the three phase meter connection without taking any meter reading. They also failed to file any document or guidelines which can support the version of the OP that the existing  consumption of Unit 9836 has become three fold i.e 29508 ( 9836 X3) on the basis of which an exorbitant amount of Rs 90,321/- has been charged.

Considering  the materials on record we are of the view that it will be just and proper  to remit the matter before the OP Distribution Board for deciding  regarding  the raising of bill amount  and at this stage  the instant bill challenged before this Forum appears to be unjustified  as the meter reading  was not taken in presence of the complainant, as it is alleged. We find  that the OP was deficient in service  in raising the bill without taking the meter reading. Also we find that the complainant has merit in the complaint and it should be allowed.

The second issue is thus answered accordingly.       

Hence, it is

O R D E R E D

That CC/ 576 of 2017 be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP.

The OP is directed to rectify the bill issued by them after taking reading  of Meter No. G 103938 and alternatively, new Meter No. GX 16103 in presence of the complainant. The OP is further directed to pay litigation cost of Rs. 5000/- to the complainant within one month from the date of this order, subject to payment of the outstanding dues by the complainant which was before installation of the three phase meter connection within the said stipulated period of one month .

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