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. 24/2014
Sri Saradindu Bhattacharjee
S/o Late Pravat Ch. Bhattacharjee
Vill.: Khadimpur Ambagan,
PO & PS: Balurghat
Dist. Dakshin Dinajpur …………………Complainant(s)
V-E-R-S-U-S
The Assistant Engineer & Station Manager,
Balurghat Customer Care Centre
W.B.S.E.D. Co. Ltd.
PO & PS: Balurghat,
Dist. Dakshin Dinajpur …………… ...Opposite Party
For complainant ………… - Shri Bidyut Kr. Roy, Ld. Adv. & - Shri Anish Das, Ld. Adv.
For OP ………… - Shri Sudip Chatterjee, Ld. Adv.
Date of Filing : 11.06.2014
Date of Disposal : 22.01.2015
Contd…P/2
Judgment & Order dated 22.01.2015
In brief, case of the complainant / petitioner is that he took electricity connection from OP for domestic consumption since a long ago. Thus, he has become a consumer under the OP vide Consumer ID No. 433007473. OP board used to send bills to him mentioning the unit so consumed for his domestic use and he used to pay the electric bills regularly. During consumption old meter being numbered 7S0257405 of his service connection has been replaced by installing a new meter being numbered T-1197284 on last 15.7.2011. On the date of replacement of the meter reading of the old meter was shown as 5914 unit in the meter card. After installation of the new meter OP used to take meter reading and record the same in the meter card. Last meter reading as on 18.5.2014 has been recorded in the mater card as 4900 units. It is the further case of the complainant that after installation of the new meter OP used to send electric bills to him on the basis of fictitious, hypothetical electric consumption unit not in conformity with meter reading appeared and shown in the meter. OP used to send such bills for 40 or 50 units as per their whims without mentioning the actual meter reading as displayed in the newly installed meter. Accordingly, he requested the OP on several occasions to rectify the bills, but no effect at all. Although new meter was installed, but OP used to send bills mentioning the reference of old meter with fictitious number of unit. He has been compelled to pay the billed amount to avoid disconnection of electric line. All on a sudden in the first part of June, 2014 OP sent a bill amounting to Rs.34,719/- to him for the consumption period from 7.2.2014 to 8.5.2014. In the said bill previous reading date has been mentioned as 7.2.2014 and present reading date has been noted as 8.5.2014. Billing date of such bill is 5.6.2014. OP charged the said amount of Rs.34,719/- from him against electric consumption of 4046 units and the same is improbable to consume such unit within a period of 3(three) months. OP sent the impugned bill without any basis by
Contd…P/3
exaggerating the actual electric consumption. It is the further case of the complainant that previously OP sent a bill dated 27.3.2014 claiming 100 units mentioning the wrong and fictitious unit as previous reading 6668 units and present reading 6768 units. Immediately after receiving the said bill he submitted representation on last 28.4.2014 against such erroneous billing and prayed for proper relief. In spite of receiving such representation OP did not take any step for rectification of the said bill. On the other hand, OP sent the impugned bill amounting to Rs.34,719/-. According to the complainant, he never consumed such claimed 4046 units as mentioned in the impugned bill. So, he is not liable to pay such amount of Rs.34,719/- as mentioned in the impugned bill. There is gross negligence and deficiency in rendering service on behalf of OP. Hence, he has filed the petition of complaint against the OP praying for giving direction to rectify the impugned bill dated 5.6.2014.
OP has contested the present case by filing a written version inter-alia denying all the material allegations made by the complainant in his petition of complaint. It is admitted by the OP that the complainant is a consumer under the W.B.S.E.D.C.L. of Balurghat customer care centre. It is the main contention of this OP (so far it can be gathered from its written version) that claimed unit 4046 against final reading 4900 is justified and correct. For the said reason complainant / petitioner did not raise any objection about such 4046 units. Present case is malafide one. So, this OP 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 version and the other materials on record. It is admitted position that the complainant is a consumer under the OP as he has taken electric connection from it for domestic consumption.
Contd…P/4
It is further admitted position that during consumption old meter being numbered 7S0257405 of his service connection has been replaced on last 15.7.2011 by installing a new meter being numbered T-1197284 and on the date of replacement the meter reading of the old meter was shown as 5914 unit. It is the main contention of the complainant (so far it can be gathered from his petition of complaint) that after installation of the new meter OP used to send bills to him mentioning the reference of old meter with fictitious number of unit. To avoid disconnection of electric line he has been compelled to pay the billed amount against the bills sent by the OP. It is the further contention of the complainant that he requested the OP for several times to rectify the fictitious bills, but no effect at all. Ultimately, in the first part of June, 2014 OP sent a bill amounting to Rs.34,719/- to him for the consumption period from 7.2.2014 to 8.5.2014. In the said bill previous reading date has been mentioned as 7.2.2014 and present reading date has been noted as 8.5.2014. OP charged the said amount of Rs.34,719/- from him against consumption of 4046 units and the same is improbable to consume such units by him within a period of 3 (three) months. OP sent the impugned bill without any basis by exaggerating the actual consumption of electricity. It is also the contention of the complainant that OP previously sent a bill dated 27.3.2014 claiming 100 units mentioning wrong and fictitious unit as previous reading 6668 units and present reading 6768 units. Immediately after receiving the said bill he submitted representation against such erroneous billing on last 28.4.2014 and prayed for proper relief. But no step was taken by the OP for rectification of such bill. On the other hand, OP sent the impugned bill amounting to Rs.34,719/-.
OP did not support the above contention of the complainant. According to the OP ( so far it can be gathered from its written version) claimed 4046 units as mentioned in the impugned bill against the final
Contd…P/5
reading 4900 is justified and correct i.e. the impugned bill amounting to Rs.34,719/- is not at all erroneous. Ld. Counsel on behalf of the OP submitted before us that the instant case must fail as the complainant did not comply with the provisions of Rule 16 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956. According to him, prior to filing the instant petition of complaint before this Forum complainant ought to have filed complaint with regard to the accuracy of the impugned bill in writing to the licensee after payment of 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 complainant has filed the instant case before this Forum. Ld. Counsel drew our attention to the provisions of Rule 16 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956. We have carefully perused the same from which it is clear that the provisions of the aforesaid rule shall lie when any consumer prays for relief before the licensee in respect of any bill. 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 OP.
Now we will consider how far the complainant/ petitioner has been able to prove his case. At the time of hearing Ld. Counsel on behalf of the complainant submitted before us that it would appear from the meter card that last closure unit was 5914 when old meter bearing No. 7S0257405 was replaced and it is not possible to increase the unit exceeding the last closure units. But OP claimed amount for several times more than of that closure unit and in the impugned bill OP claimed the amount mentioning the previous meter reading as 6768 unit against old meter without any basis. According to him, the said bill has been prepared in wrong manner showing abnormal unit. It was the further contention of the Ld. Counsel that the complainant never consumed such units for such period as mentioned in the impugned bill.
Contd…P/6
So he is not liable to pay the amount of Rs.34,719/- as mentioned in the impugned bill. In support of his above contention Ld. Counsel drew our attention to the xerox-copies of two separate meter cards as well as some electric bills including the impugned bill. We have carefully perused the same from which it is clearly seen that on the date of replacement i.e. on 15.7.2011 meter reading of the old meter was shown as 5914 units in the meter card. Ld. Counsel submitted before us that after 15.7.2011 OP sent some bills mentioning 245/235 as average units without mentioning the actual meter reading. It is to be noted here that 5914 units has been noted as previous reading as well as present reading in the bills dated 6.8.2011, 4.11.2011, 20.3.2012 and 24.5.2012. We fail to understand as to how OP sent such bills. To that effect no explanation is forthcoming from the side of the OP.
28.4.2011 and 28.7.2011 have been mentioned in the bill dated 6.8.2011 as previous reading date and present reading date respectively. In the bill dated 4.11.2011 previous reading date has been mentioned as 28.7.2011 and present reading date has been mentioned as 22.10.2011. 23.10.2011 and 15.1.2012 have been mentioned as previous reading date and present reading date respectively in the bill dated 20.3.2012. In the bill dated 24.5.2012 previous reading date has been mentioned as 15.1.2012 and present reading date as 24.4.2012. In those 4 (four) bills 5914 units has been shown in the previous reading as well as present reading columns. Moreover, there is nothing in the xerox-copies of the meter cards by which it can be said that meter reader took any reading on the dates mentioned in the bills as stated above. So, it can be safely be said that without any reading OP sent such fictitious bills in favour of the complainant. It is further seen from the materials on record that OP sent some bills mentioning 6099 units as previous reading and 6300 units as present reading, 6545 units as previous reading and 6668 units as present reading as well as 6768
Contd…P/7
units etc. as previous reading. Then we fail to understand as to how OP sent such bills as on the date of replacement meter reading of the old meter was shown as 5914 units in the meter card. Moreover, there is nothing in the materials on record by which it can be said that meter reader took such reading and mentioned the same in the meter card. Except this, those bills were sent against the old meter No. 7S0257405 and not against the new meter No. T-1197284. To that effect no explanation is forthcoming from side of the OP as to why such bills were sent against the old meter after installation of new meter. So, it was rightly pointed out by the Ld. Counsel on behalf of the complainant that each and every bill has been prepared by OP in wrong manner showing abnormal units.
Now, we will consider as to whether the impugned bill amounting to Rs.34,719/- is correct or not. It is seen that the previous reading date has been mentioned as 7.2.2014 and present reading date has been noted as 8.5.2014 in the impugned bill dated 5.6.2014. OP charged the amount of Rs.34,719/- from the complainant against consumption of 4046 units for the period from 7.2.2014 to 8.5.2014. It is further seen that 854 units as previous reading and 4900 units as present reading have been shown in the impugned bill dated 5.6.2014 against the new meter No. T-1197284 and 6768 units has been noted as previous reading as well as present reading in the impugned bill against the old meter No. 7S0257405. There is no any whisper in the meter card by which it can be said that meter reader took any reading on the above mentioned dates in respect of unit as stated above. So, it was again rightly pointed out by the Ld. Counsel on behalf of the complainant that impugned bill does not reflect the actual consumption of electricity for the period from 7.2.2014 to 8.5.2014 as the same was prepared not in accordance with the usual billing cycle without following billing procedure. In support of his above contention Ld. Counsel
Contd…P/8
referred 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 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 5.6.2014 amounting to Rs.34,719/- was prepared by the OP in wrong manner showing abnormal units i.e. the same was not prepared following due procedure. So, there is / was gross negligence and deficiency in rendering service on behalf of OP and as such, the complainant is not liable to pay amounting to Rs.34,719/- as mentioned in the impugned bill dated 5.6.2014.
In the premises, the instant case must succeed.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
that the instant petition of complaint be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP, but in the circumstances without any cost.
OP is hereby directed to prepare and send rectified bill to the complainant Saradindu Bhattacharjee in place of impugned bill dated 5.6.2014 on the basis of actual consumption of electricity by the
Contd…P/9
consumer for the relevant period i.e. for the period from 7.2.2014 to 8.5.2014 within 30 days from the date of this order.
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 ……………………
-x-
