The complainant has come to this Forum for redressal u/s 12 of the CP Act 1986 with a prayer to pass an order on the Op to quash the bill amounting to Rs. 21,290/- dt. 19.10.2013.
The summation of the complainant goes that the complainant has received a bill dt. 03.07.2017 amounting to Rs.48,082 including an outstanding amount Rs.47,415/- for the period from 28.01.2013 to 05.11.2016 and also outstanding of some previous bills. The bill has been raised in spite of meter remained stopped for the period from 26.11.2012 due to defect as recorded in the consumer’s yellow card. So the complainant prays for quashing the bill dt.19.10.2013 and claims a compensation of Rs.1 lakh with interest.
In the written version filed by the OP it is stated that the bill has been prepared on the basis of physical meter reading and the complaint regarding the defective meter is not correct as the meter is still going on. He stated more with documents (kept in file) that the complainant has paid only Rs.12,456/- for one installment on 17.02.2017 and on 20.02.2017 regarding the bill of the same date an equal installments of 9 dates were prepared by the OP office considering the financial condition of the OP and it was instructed that the payment is to be completed between 17.07.2017 to 19.03.2018 for the total amount of Rs. 48,114.50/-. But no payment of installment has been done by the complainant.
On argument the Ld. Lawyer for the complainant primarily stated what he had stated in his complaint and then questioned the originality of the bill as the meter has been recorded defective in 2012. So the amount claimed Rs. 21290/- having bill date 19.10.2013 should be quashed and also LPSC charges are also to be quashed. The Ld. Lawyer for the complainant has also questioned how a bill after two years may be raised by the OP according to the regulations of the OP. The complainant in person admitted to this Forum that the meter is in the name of his father and he has not till date applied to the OP for changing the name and title of the meter after the demise of his father. He also admitted that till date he has not paid a farthing to the OP for enjoying electrical connection. The Ld. Lawyer for the complainant could not satisfy the Forum why the outstanding amount of the bill dt. 19.10.2013 will not be included in the current bills.
On argument the Ld. Lawyer questioned the maintainability of this case in this Forum referring the order passed by the Hon’ble WBSCDRC, Kolkata dt.01.06.2018 in appeal case No. A/1087/2017 and he has also questioned the identity of the complainant as the meter is in the name of his deceased father and no prayer for changing the name of the meter has yet been received by the OP office. He further argued that in spite of giving opportunity of installment payment of the bill dt. 20.02.2017 on humanitarian ground, the complainant has not paid a peny and dared to come to this Forum for quashing the bill. This is astonishing.
Points for decision:
- Is the complainant a consumer to the OP?
- Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the OP?
DECISION WITH REASONS
It is true that the meter and electrical connection is not recorded in the name of the complainant, but as an heir to his deceased father and also beneficiary of the electrical connection the complainant may be considered as a consumer to the OP. From the above discussion it is revealed that the complainant’s father has lodged a complaint of his defective meter in 2012 but still the meter is running properly. It is to be believed that the OP has taken some steps regarding the complaint of the original consumer in due time but no document has been filed. The complainant has failed to take the advantage of paying the dues in installments. It should not be a fact that being a poor man he has not to pay bills for electrical connection. It may be a child like desire to quash bills after consuming electrical facilities. We are also surprised to note it that though the bill for the said disputed meter has not been paid regularly, the OP has taken no initiative for disconnection as per the rule and regulations of the company. We may take some humanitarian attitude in adjudicating and redressing the grievance of the complainant though there is no deficiency on the part of the OP. The OP-2 is a misjoinder in the instant case.
Having full regard to the order passed by Hon’ble SCDRC, WB dt.01.06.2018 in appeal case No. A/1087/2017 the instant case is adjudicated as the case is at the last stage of hearing after the case being filed on 02.01.2018 much before the judgment come to the knowledge of this Forum.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
The OP is directed that a fresh bill including the whole amount of the bill dt.20.02.2017 without imposing LPSC up to the date of this order is to be prepared & issued to the complainant within 15 days from the date of this order. This bill is to be paid by the complainant in 20 equal installments. The complainant is directed to pay the installment amount according to the fresh bill within 10th of each month and also make regular payment of the bills to be prepared latter. In case of failing to make payment of the installment within the date LPSC will be imposed.
The case be and the same partly succeeds on contest.
Let a plain copy of this order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost.
