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 P. K. Chakraborty - President
Shri J. Bhattacharya - Member
Miss. Swapna Saha - Member
Consumer Complaint No. 17/2014
1. Smt. Shyamali Mukherjee
W/o Late Pabitra Kr. Mukherjee
2. Sri Shankar Mukherjee
3. Sri Shubhankar Mukherjee
Both S/o Late Pabitra Kr. Mukherjee
All of village : Chakbhabani (Uttamasha Polly),
PO & PS: Balurghat
Dist. Dakshin Dinajpur …………………Complainant(s)
V-E-R-S-U-S
1. The Assistant Engineer / Station Manager,
West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd.
Balurghat Customer Care Centre,
Power House, PO: Beltala Park,
PS: Balurghat,
Dist. Dakshin Dinajpur
2. The Divisional Manager,
West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd.
Divisional Office,
Power House, PO: Beltala Park,
PS: Balurghat,
Dist. Dakshin Dinajpur ……………...Opposite Parties
For complainant ………… - Shri Santanu Dey, Ld. Adv.
For OP Nos. 1 & 2 ………… - Shri Sudip Chatterjee, Ld. Adv.
Date of Filing : 30.05.2014
Date of Disposal : 22.01.2015
Contd…P/2
Judgment & Order dated 22.01.2015
Capsuled the case of the complainants / petitioners is that their father Pabitra Kr. Mukherjee, since deceased, was the original consumer of the OP Nos. 1 & 2 vide Consumer ID No.433007152 against domestic connection Meter No.384853. After death of their father they have become consumers of the OPs as beneficiaries. They have been paying electric bills regularly to the OPs. During consumption of electricity old Meter No. 384853 of their service connection has been replaced on last 19.8.2013 by installing a new Meter No.B2102266. On the date of replacement of the meter reading of the old meter was shown as 2659 units in the meter card. After installation of the new meter OPs used to take meter reading and record the same in the meter card. Last meter reading as on 10.4.2014 has been recorded in the meter card as 1300 units. It is alleged by the complainants / petitioners in their petition of complaint that all on a sudden they received a electric bill amounting to Rs.40,072/- only for the consumption period from 4.4.2013 to 3.1.2014. Billing date of such bill is 1.2.2014. In the said bill previous reading date has been mentioned as 4.4.2013 and present reading date has been noted as 3.1.2014. OPs charged the amount of Rs.40,072/- from them for electric consumption of 4382 units against the old meter No. 384853 and 884 units against the new Meter No.B2102266. According to them, it is quite improbable to consume such 5266 units in total (4382 + 884 units) for the period from 4.4.2013 to 3.1.2014 as they never consumed electricity beyond 450 units for consecutive 3 (three) months on previous occasions. OPs sent the impugned bill without any basis by exaggerating the actual electric consumption. They never consumed such claimed 5266 units as mentioned in the impugned bill. So, they are not liable to pay such amount of Rs.40,072/- to the OPs. Although they requested the OPs to make necessary correction of the impugned bill, but no effect at all. There is gross negligence and deficiency in
Contd…P/3
rendering service on behalf of OPs. Hence, they have filed the petition of complaint against the OPs praying for giving direction to rectify the impugned bill dated 1.2.2014 and for compensation amounting to Rs.2,00,000/-.
Both the OPs have contested the present case by filing a written statement inter-alia denying all the material allegations made by the complainants in their petition of complaint. It is the main contention of this OPs (so far it can be gathered from the written statement) that the complainants are not at all consumers under them. It is admitted by the OPs that previously one Pabitra Kr. Mukherjee, since deceased, who is the father of the complainants, was the consumer under them vide consumer ID No.433007152 against domestic connection meter No. 384853. Complainants never informed them that Pabitra Kr. Mukherjee is dead at present and they are his legal heirs. They never filed any application for changing the name of the consumer. They are paying electric bills in the name of deceased Pabitra Kr. Mukherjee and the same is totally illegal. It is admitted by the OPs that old meter No. 384853 has been changed by installing a new Meter No.B2102266 on last 19.8.2013. But after installing the new meter private meter reader did not take proper meter reading. According to the OPs, claimed amount as mentioned in the impugned bill is absolutely correct. Due to some technical errors invoice was generated with wrong data and subsequently the same was rectified. So, there is / was no any laches on their behalf. Present case is malafide one. So, these OPs prayed for dismissal of this case.
From the materials on record we have come to the following finding.
FINDING WITH REASONS
Before passing this judgement we have carefully perused the petition of complaint, written statement and the other materials on record. It is admitted position that initially one Pabitra Kr. Mukherjee,
Contd…P/4
since deceased, who is the father of the complainants, was the consumer under the OPs vide Consumer ID No.433007152 against domestic connection Meter No.384853. It is further admitted position that the old meter No. 384853 has been changed / replaced by the OPs by installing a new Meter No.B2102266 on last 19.8.2013. It is the main contention of the complainants / petitioners (so far it can be gathered from their petition of complaint) that after death of their father they have become consumers under the OPs as beneficiaries and they have been paying electric bills regularly against consumption of electricity. It is the further case of the complainants that they never consumed electricity beyond 450 units for consecutive 3 (three) months on previous occasions. But all on a sudden OPs sent a bill amounting to Rs.40,072/- to them for the consumption period from 4.4.2013 to 3.1.2014. In the said bill dated 1.2.2014 previous reading date has been mentioned as 4.4.2013 and present reading date has been noted as 3.1.2014. OPs charged the said amount of Rs.40,072/- from them against consumption of 5266 units in total and the same is improbable to consume such units by them within a period of 9 (nine) months. OPs sent the impugned bill without any basis by exaggerating the actual consumption of electricity. Although they requested the OPs for several times for rectification of such bill, but no effect at all.
OPs did not support the above contention of the complainants. It is their main contention that the instant case must fail as the complainants are not at all consumers under them. It is their further contention that claimed 5266 units ((4382 + 884 units) as mentioned in the impugned bill against the final reading 16382 units (15019 +1363 units) is justified and correct i.e. the impugned bill amounting to Rs.40,072/- is not at all erroneous. Ld. Counsel on behalf of the OPs submitted before us that if this Forum holds that the complainants are the consumers under them, in spite of the same the instant case fails as the complainants did not comply with the provisions of Rule 16 of the
Contd…P/5
Indian Electricity Rules, 1956. According to him, prior to filing the instant petition of complaint before this Forum the complainants ought to have filed complaint with regard to the accuracy of the impugned bill in writing to the licensee after payment the amount of such bill under protest within a period of 15 days from the date of presentation of the bill as per provisions of the aforesaid rule. Without following the said provisions the complainants have filed the instant case before this Forum.
Now we will consider as to whether the complainants/ petitioners are the consumers under the OPs as per provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or not. It is admitted position that one Pabitra Kr. Mukherjee, since deceased, who is the father of the complainants, was consumer under the OPs vide Consumer ID No.433007152 against domestic connection Meter No.384853. It is also admitted position that said Pabitra Kr. Mukherjee is dead at present. It is seen from the materials on record that after death of Pabitra Kr. Mukherjee complainants have been consuming electricity against the said domestic connection Meter No.384853, which stands in the name of their deceased father, by paying electricity bills as beneficiaries. It is well-settled that a beneficiary of the owner of electricity connection can file complaint (vide 2009 (4) CPR at page 230). Considering all these aspects as well as with regard to the above decision we hold that the complainants are the consumers under the OPs as per provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
At this stage, we will consider as to whether the complainants ought to have complied with the provisions of Rule 16 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 or not prior to filing the instant case. Ld. Counsel drew our attention to the provisions of the aforesaid rule. We have carefully perused the same, from which it is clear that the provisions of the Rule 16 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 shall lie when any consumer prays for relief before the licensee in respect of any bill.
Contd…P/6
There is nothing in the said rule by which it can be said that prior to filing any complaint before Dist. Consumer Forum consumer has to comply with the provisions of such rule. So, we do not place any reliance upon the above contention of the Ld. Counsel on behalf of the OPs.
Now, we will consider how far the complainants / petitioners have been able to prove their case. At the time of hearing Ld. Counsel on behalf of the complainants submitted before us that it would appear from the meter card that last closure unit was 2659 when old meter being numbered 384853 was replaced and it is not possible to increase the unit exceeding the last closure units. But the OPs claimed amount of Rs.40,072/- in the impugned bill more than of that closure unit and in the impugned bill OPs claimed the amount mentioning 10637 units as previous reading and 15019 units as present reading against old meter No. 384853. 479 units as previous reading and 1363 units as present reading have been mentioned in the impugned bill against the new meter No.B2102266. According to the Ld. Lawyer aforesaid units have been noted in the impugned bill without any basis and bill in question has been prepared in wrong manner showing abnormal unit. It is the further submission of the Ld. Counsel that the complainants never consumed such units for the period from 4.4.2013 to 3.1.2014 as mentioned in the impugned bill. So, the complainants are not at all liable to pay the amount of Rs.40,072/- as noted in the impugned bill. In support of his above contention Ld. Counsel drew our attention to some original electric bills including the impugned bill as well as meter card. We have carefully perused the same, from which it is clearly seen that the complainants never consumed electricity beyond 450 units for consecutive 3 (three) months on previous occasions. It is further seen that on the date of replacement of the meter i.e. on 19.8.2013 meter reading of the old meter was shown as 2659 units in the meter card.
Contd…P/7
It is to be noted here that the OPs are claiming a sum of Rs.40,072/- on the strength of impugned bill dated 1.2.2014 mentioning that the complainants have consumed 4382 units of electricity against old meter No. 384853 and 884 units against new meter No. B2102266 in between 4.4.2013 to 3.1.2014. There is nothing in the meter card by which it can be said that the complainants consumed such units of electricity in between the aforesaid period. We have already stated above that 10637 units as previous reading and 15019 units as present reading against old meter No. 384853 have been mentioned in the impugned bill. 479 units as previous reading and 1363 as present reading against new meter No. B2102266 have been mentioned / noted in the impugned bill. There is also nothing in the meter card by which it can be said that meter reader took such readings on the aforesaid dates i.e. there is no any whisper in the meter card by which it can be said that meter reader took any reading on the aforesaid dates in respect of unit / units as stated above. To that effect no satisfactory explanation is forthcoming from side of the OPs as to why meter reader did not take such reading in the meter card on the aforesaid dates. It is to be noted further that meter reader noted 479 units in the meter card on 2.11.2013 and 1300 units on last 10.4.2014. We are astonished enough because 1336 units as present reading against new meter No.B2102266 has been shown in the impugned bill on last 3.1.2014. So, it can safely be said that without any reading OPs sent such fictitious bill in favour of the complainants. It was rightly pointed out by the Ld. Counsel on behalf of the complainants that impugned bill does not reflect the actual consumption of electricity for the period from 4.4.2013 to 3.1.2014 as the same was prepared not in accordance with the billing cycle without following billing procedure. In support of his above contention Ld. Counsel referred to two decisions reported in 1 (1993) CPJ 25 (29) (NC) and 2012 (3) CPR at page 42. We have carefully perused the said decisions. It is held in the decision reported in 1 (1993) CPJ 25 (29) (NC) that it is ‘deficiency in service’ if the bills for
Contd…P/8
electrical consumption were not prepared and served at the appointed time in accordance with the billing cycle and thereafter harassing the consumer with heavy arrears bill. It is ‘deficiency in service’ to have raised bills without actual meter reading and to raise the arrears bill without details of the period to which the arrears pertained.
It is held in the decision reported in 2012 (3) CPR at page 42 that the disputed bill was not properly calculated. Therefore disputed bill was illegal since it was not prepared following due procedure.
Considering all these aspects as well as with regard to the decisions as mentioned above we are inclined to hold that impugned bill dated 1.2.2014 amounting to Rs.40,072/- was prepared by the OPs in wrong manner showing abnormal units i.e. the same was not prepared following billing procedure and billing cycyle. So, there is / was gross negligence and deficiency in rendering service on behalf of OPs and as such, the complainants are not liable to pay amounting to Rs.40,072/- as mentioned in the impugned bill dated 1.2.2014. We further hold that the complainants are entitled to get a sum of Rs.15,000/- as compensation for their harassment and mental agony due to deficiency in service on the part of OPs.
In the premises, instant case succeeds in part.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
that the instant petition of complaint be and the same is allowed in part on contest against the OPs, but in the circumstances without any cost.
Both the OPs are hereby jointly and severally directed to prepare and send rectified bill to the complainants namely Smt. Shyamali Mukherjee, Shankar Mukherjee and Shubhankar Mukherjee in place of impugned bill dated 1.2.2014 on the basis of actual consumption of electricity by the consumers for the relevant period
Contd…P/9
i.e. for the period from 4.4.2013 to 3.1.2014 within 30 days from the date of this order.
The OPs are jointly and severally further directed to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand) only as compensation to the complainants above named by issuing 3 (three) separate account payee cheques of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) only each in their names within the aforesaid period, out of which the complainants shall deposit a sum of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One thousand) each in the “ State Consumer Welfare Fund ” (A/c No. 0093000100310261) payable at P.N.B. Balurghat Branch within 7 days from the date of receipt of cheques.
Direction is also given to the OPs to deposit the said cheques to this Forum within the period as mentioned above.
Let plain copies of this order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost.
Dictated & corrected
………Sd/-….…….
(P. K. Chakraborty)
President
We concur,
……Sd/-..…… ………Sd/-……..
(J. Bhattacharya) (S. Saha) 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 ……………………
