Judgment & Order dt. 26.07.2017
Demand of an excessive amount by the OP / Electric Department in the electric bill dt. 24.12.2015 has galvanized the complainant to file the instant case u/s 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986, praying for passing an order setting aside the said bill dt. 24.12.2015 and three other electric bills dt. 9.3.2016, 6.12.2016 and 14.1.2017 consequently prepared on the basis of disputed bill dt. 24.12.2015 and also for payment of compensation etc. against the OPs. The quintessence of the facts leading to the filing of the instant complaint may be reproduced as follows.
The complainant is a cultivator by profession. He took a STW connection from the OP-department for the purpose of irrigation of his own land. A meter bearing No.LX609134, which was supplied to the complainant for the above connection, went burnt on 30.6.2014 and fact of the meter being burnt was also intimated to the OP-1, who was also asked to supply a new meter. On 15.11.2014 an electric bill of Rs.25,322/- for electricity consumption for the month of September,2014 was given to the complainant wherein the last meter reading was shown as being ‘16395’ units of the burnt meter. On 23.12.2014, Rs.15,000/- as against the above bill and Rs.100/- as reconnection charge were paid by the complainant to OP-1. On 19.1.2015, the complainant also paid the balance amount of Rs.10,322/- to OP-1 and also prayed for rectification of the aforesaid bill dt. 15.11.2014. The Ops paid no heed to the grievance of the complainant; they slapped another bill of Rs.5,946/- on 19.1.2015 for consumption of energy for the month of November, 2014. On 30.11.2015, Rs.6,045/- was accordingly paid by the complainant to the OP-1 against the said bill. A new meter bearing No.LF508582 was installed on 23.12.2015 and reconnection of electric line was also given to the complainant on that day. Thereafter, on 24.12.2015 another bill of Rs.55,675/- was given to the complainant demanding energy charge for February, 2015 mentioning therein previous meter reading ’28,170’ units, present meter reading ‘29,156’ units. The complainant has made no payment of this bill. According to him, this demand of the OPs in the bill dt. 24.12.2015 is excessive, unjustified and hypothetical and all other bills prepared thereafter by the OPs mentioning outstanding amount of Rs.55,675/- of the bill dt. 24.12.2015 are not also properly drawn up by the OPs. They have claimed excessive amount by those bills; he has sustained deliberate harassment by the OPs and OPs have not paid any heed to his grievance and as such he had prayed for setting aside those electric bills and also for payment of Rs.4 lakh as compensation for causing deliberate harassment to him. Hence, this case.
The OPs have filed a written statement contending inter alia that the complainant is their consumer and his meter of STW connection went burnt. New meter was not supplied to him as there was shortage of meter in their stock. The electric connection of the complainant was not disconnected and the complainant consumed energy from time to time, even if existing meter went out of order due to burn. So, an estimated bill on consumption as per Regulation was drawn by the department and the disputed bill dt. 24.12.2015 is the estimated bill prepared by the OP-department. Such bill is correctly prepared and there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-department in preparing the said bill.
Upon the averments of both the parties, following points are formulated for proper adjudication of the matter in dispute.
Points for determination:
- Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs in issuing the disputed bill dt. 24.12.2015 demanding Rs.55,675/- from the complainant?
- Is the complainant entitled to get compensation etc. as prayed for ?
Evidence of the parties:
The complainant has filed an affidavit-in-chief along with documents as per firisti kept in record. Neither any affidavit-in-chief nor any document is filed on behalf of OPs.
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point Nos. 1 & 2:
Discussions on both the points are synchronized for the sake of convenience. Ld. Lawyer appearing for the OPs / electric department has contended that the meter of the complainant went burnt on 30.6.2014; but the electric line was never disconnected and the complainant consumed electricity from 30.6.2014 to 23.12.2015 – the date on which a new meter bearing No.LF508582 was installed. So, according to him, he is bound to pay for energy consumption, which has been consumed by him during that period and the disputed bill dt. 24.12.2015 bearing invoice No.689000011386 has been prepared on the basis of average consumption of electric energy as per provisions of Regulation. Ld. Lawyer appearing for the complainant has urged before the Forum that the meter went burnt on 30.6.2014 and since then there was no supply of electrical energy. As the complainant did not consume any energy during the period ranging from the date of the meter being burnt and the date of the installation of the new meter, the OPs can never claim any payment from the complainant for consumption of energy and for that matter the disputed bill dt. 24.12.2015 whereby a sum of Rs.55,675/- has been demanded from the complainant is illegal, concocted and hypothetical. So, according to his submission, that bill dt. 24.12.2015 and 3 other subsequent bills prepared consequent upon the bill dt. 24.12.2015 should be set aside. He goes on further submitting that imaginary figures have been placed on the disputed bill dt. 24.12.2015 to indicate meter reading. The meter was burnt and therefore, no figure of meter reading can be available from that meter. The OPs have put imaginary figures showing meter reading in the disputed bill and therefore the disputed bill should be cancelled.
In the face of submission and counter-submission as indicated above, it is to be seen now whether electric connection to STW of the complainant was ever disconnected by the OPs. It has been submitted on behalf of OPs that the electric line was never disconnected; the supply of energy was as intact as before. To counter this submission, it has been canvassed on behalf of the complainant that the electric line got disconnected as soon as the meter went fully burnt and therefore a charge of Rs.100/- as per the Regulation was paid by the complainant on 23.12.2014 to the OP as reconnection charge. Ld. Lawyer for the OPs has submitted that the said charge of Rs.100/- as paid on 23.12.2014 was charge for disconnection, not for reconnection and that it goes to prove that the electric line of the complainant was never disconnected and that the supply of energy was as intact as before.
Let us see whether the electric line of the complainant was ever disconnected by the OPs or not. In the instant case, there is no dispute that the meter of the complainant went burnt. If the meter is burnt, the supply of electrical energy through the meter is not possible in any way. If the supply of energy is to be maintained in that case, a direct connection from electric line to the pump is to be made and in that case the consumption of energy by such direct connection amounts to theft of energy. There is no allegation whatsoever against the complainant by the OPs that the complainant caused theft of energy. If there is no such allegation against the complainant, it can reasonably be held by a prudent person that the supply of electrical energy was also disrupted thoroughly as soon as the meter went burnt. One money receipt bearing Sl No. C-2558670 is filed by the complainant. By this money receipt, Rs.100/- has been received by the OPs. According to the complainant, it is paid for reconnection. But, the OPs said that such payment was made for disconnection. Had it been for disconnection the OPs would have received a further charge for reconnection from the complainant, when they installed the new meter on 23.12.2015 and gave reconnection to the complainant. But, the OPs have not been able to produce any such document to show that they received any charge for reconnection of the line to the complainant on 23.12.2015. In absence of such a document, we feel constrained to say that the complainant paid Rs.100/- on 23.12.2014 as reconnection charge and the line was reconnected accordingly by the OPs on 23.12.2015. The fact of giving reconnection on 23.12.2015 by the OPs to the complainant proves without any least hesitation that the electric supply of the complainant got disconnected as soon as the meter went burnt. This being so, the OPs are not entitled to claim any charge from the complainant on account of consumption of energy for the period from 30.6.2014 to 23.12.2015. Issuance of bills for that period as referred to above demanding a hefty sum of money i.e. Rs.55,675/- as charge for consumption of energy is no doubt a deficiency in service on the part of OPs.
A further perusal of the disputed bill dt. 24.12.2015 reveals that there is mention of previous meter reading and present meter reading. The previous meter reading is 28,170 units and present meter reading is 29,156 units. It is undisputed fact that the meter went burnt on 30.6.2014 and at the time of such burning of the meter the present meter reading was 16,395 units. If this be so, we are amazed to think how the figure of previous meter reading as being 28,170 units and that of present meter reading being 29,156 units were mentioned in the disputed bill dt. 24.12.2015. If the meter is burnt, no figure of meter reading can be available there-from for the period from 30.6.2014 to 23.12.2015. But, the fact is that there is the meter reading mentioned in the disputed bill and we can say emphatically that those figures of meter reading are nothing but figment of imagination. Regulations do never authorize the OPs to put such fictitious figures of meter reading in the electric bill and this act on the part of OPs appears to be absolutely a deficiency in service.
Ld. Lawyer appearing for the OPs has contended that the disputed bill dt. 24.12.2015 has been prepared on the basis of consumption of the same month of last year as per provisions of the Regulation. But, no bill has been produced before the Forum by him to establish the consumption of the same month of last year and in absence of such vital document, we do hold that the submission of Ld. Lawyer is devoid of any merits.
To sum up, the meter of the complainant went burnt and did not function from 30.6.2014 to 23.12.2015 and electric energy was not consumed by the complainant during this period. Consumption of electrical energy only commenced from 23.12.2015 i.e. the date when the new meter was provided and reconnection was given. So, the OPs cannot claim any money from the complainant for the period during which supply of electrical energy was totally stopped except only incidental charges which may be claimed statutorily by the OPs. The new meter bearing No.LF-508582 was installed on 23.12.2015 and the OPs are entitled to claim consumption charge from 23.12.2015 onwards, but not before that. The complainant has been put to constant harassment by the OPs by not supply new meter to him and by way of demanding fabulous sum of money by issuing the disputed bill dt. 24.12.2015 having put fictitious meter reading figures thereon. So, they will have to pay compensation to the complainant for giving him unnecessary trouble, both mentally and physically.
In the result, the case succeeds in part.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
that the complaint case be and the same is allowed on contest in part against the OPs. There is no order passed as to costs of litigation as legal aid is given to the complainant.
The disputed bill dt. 24.12.2015 bearing invoice No.689000011386 and three other bills subsequently prepared consequent upon the bill dt. 24.12.2015, viz. the bills dt. 9.3.2016, dt. 6.12.2016 and dt. 14.1.2017 are set aside. The OPs are directed to prepare a bill in pursuance of reading of the new meter from 23.12.2015 onwards strictly in terms of the provisions of the Regulation. For the period from 30.6.2014 to 23.12.2015 i.e. from the date of burning of old meter to the date of installation of the new meter, the OPs may only demand incidental charges from the complainant as per provisions of the Regulation. Compensation to be provided to the complainant by the OPs is fixed at Rs.2,000/-. Money received by the OPs by way of payment of bill dt. 15.11.2014 and bill dt. 19.1.2015 be adjusted with the new bill to be issued by the OPs in terms of this judgment.
The OPs are directed to make payment of compensation money as mentioned above within a period of 30 days from this date of order, failing which the compensation amount will bear interest @ 12% p.a. until full realization thereof. They i.e. the OPs are also at liberty to issue electric bills accordingly after adjustment as directed above and in that case the complainant will make payment of the bill within 15 days of the receipt of such bill and, if such payment is made by the complainant, the OPs will not be able to scrap the electric line of the complainant.
Let a copy of the judgment be supplied / furnished free of cost to the parties straightway.
