SRI SWADES RANJAN RAY .PRESIDENT,

            The gist of the complaint case is that the complainant is residing within the jurisdiction of this Forum and he is a consumer under the WBSEDCL, being ID No. 222005464. The meter installed in her premises became defective and on her prayer said meter was replaced by the OP on 16.01.2017 vide meter No. 1669161. Thereafter the OP sent bill for the period from 16.01.2017 to 12.03.2017 showing consumption of 1514 units.  It is the only case of the complainant that the bill send by the OP was excessive and the newly installed meter was also defective. In this regard the complainant has state that the consumer unit has been shown as 2222 units for the period 11.05.2011 to 10.12.2016 whereas the OP send bill for the period 16.01.2017 to 12.03.2017 as 1510 units and bill amount has been claimed Rs. 13,404/-. Hence, this case.

The OP has contested this case by filing written version. It is the specific case of the OP WBSEDCL that the newly installed meter was correct and OK and probably the complainant consumed more units than shown in the display board.

The points need be considered here is (1) whether the newly installed meter was defective ? and (2)  whether the bill amount for Rs. 13404/- for consumption of 1540 unit has  been made on scientific basis and (3) whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for.

                                                  DECISION WITH REASONS.

All the points are taken up together for discussion for the sake of convenience and brevity.

Perused the complaint and the documents filed by the complainant in support of his case. Seen the questionnaires and reply thereto filed in record, the documents and heard the submission of the ld. Advocates for the parties. Considered.

It is the case of the complainant that the original meter was defective and  she made prayer to the OP for changing the same and on the basis of her prayer  the OP changed the meter  by installing another on 16.01.2017 vide meter No. G 1669161. The first bill after the installation of the new  meter is for the period from16.01.2017 to 12.03.2017 and the claimed bill amount was Rs. 13,404/-. As per the case of the OP the newly installed meter was OK  and the OP send the correct bill. There is no irregularity.

At the time of argument ld. advocate for the complainant highlighted from the Yellow Card which was attached by the OP with the meter at the time of installation of the same. From the last portion of the said Yellow Card  it is found that some column  in the meter reading shows ”not displayed” in the meter. Now the question is if the meter is correct and OK, it is the presumption that the units consumed would be displayed correctly in the meter display board. But in this case  it is reflected from the Yellow card that some reading appears and some  reading disappears in the  display board. If the meter was correct then the entire consumed unit would be reflected in the display board.  Hence it may be presumed that the meter is defective.

Now the question is what is the scientific basis of calculation of the first reading i.e for the period from 16.01.207 to 12.03.2017  ie,. 1540 Units. 

At the time of argument Ld. Advocate for the OP failed to give any satisfactory explanation. So, in my view   the billing had been done on wrong basis. If the meter was correct it would reflect the correct consumption of units. So I can come to the conclusion that  the newly installed meter was also defective and the calculation of bill made on the basis of that defective meter was also  bears no scientific basis.

Now the question   before this Forum is that though the meter was defective but the fact remains  that the complainant consumed electricity for which he has to pay. So, Now w hat would be the quantum of such bill. ?

For this purpose for ends of justice, I am of the view that the OP should make average calculation for  three months before installation of the newly installed meter  and send bill thereon. On the basis of such  average calculation the OP Board should send bill for three months ie from 16.01.2017 to 12.03.2017 and the complainant would pay the said calculated average bill amount.

Liberty is given to the complainant for making application for installation of another meter to avoid further multiplicity in the matter.

In view of the merit of this case I make no order as to cost towards litigation or harassment as the main prayer of the complainant has been allowed.

All  the points are answered accordingly.     

             Hence, it is

O R D E R E D

That CC/ 65 of 2018 be and the same is allowed on contest  against the OP Electricity Board.

The OP is hereby directed to send bill for the period from 16.01.2017 to 12.03.2017 on the basis of average of three months consumption before installation of the new meter.

The OP is also directed to comply the terms of the order within 30 days from the date of this order i.d the complainant will be at liberty to put the order into execution.

There will be no order as to compensation or litigation cost.

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