The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant has been paying electric bills amounting to Rs.80/- to Rs.120/- per month but in the bills for the months of June to August, 2016 it became Rs.11,489/- which is absurd & imaginary. The said bill for the month of June to August, 2016 is illegal. If the said bill is not rectified then the complainant will suffer irreparable loss. Getting the disputed bill from the OP the complainant then and there filed objection before the OP. The complainant is no way responsible to bear the deficiency of the service and unfair trade practice of the OP. The complainant is also suffering from mental pain and agony. If the OP disconnects the power connection of the complainant suddenly then the complainant will suffer loss. So the complainant filed the instant complaint before this Forum for praying a direction upon the OP, so that the power connection of the complainant may not be disconnected and also prayed ad -interim order not to disconnect the power connection of the complainant.
The OP filed written version denying the allegations as leveled against them and averred that the energy bill for the month of March – May 2016 was prepared for consumption of the 47 units, So the energy6 bill for three months March- May,2016 within 1st due date Rs.250.01, Dec.15- Feb.2016 was done for consumption of 47 units within 1st due date Rs.243/- . The energy bill for June- August,16 has been prepared as per consumption of 1444 units recorded in the energy meter. The energy bill amount for three months was Rs.11,097/- for the whole payment 1st due date. As a matter of fact after receipt of the application form Mr. Chapal Mukherjee vide receipt No.546 dated 2.6.2016 regarding the excessive reading of energy meter Sl. No.L2991248 being consumer ID-162198373 installation No. 5757077 the OP passed order for installation of a “Master / Check meter in series with the existing meter for comparison of the registered electrical energy or units to ensure as to whether existing energy meter is perfect or not. The same was done under order No.RBT/CCC/Ch Meter/655 dated 8.7.2016. The Master/ Challenge/ Check energy meter was installed as mentioned on 13.7.2016 and testing was completed on 15.8.2016. That after completion of the test it was found that both the energy meter have no differences or consumed or registered reading or unit. So the WBSEDCL came to the conclusion that the existing meter through which the petitioner is enjoying electricity is a perfect, good, and running meter and there is no scope to consider the said alleged meter as defective one. Entire procedure was done in presence of Subhankar Mukherjee the representative of the petitioner. The OP company issued another official letter vide RBT/CCC/Ch Meter/976 dated 31.8.2016 intimating the serviceability status of his existing energy meter which was received by the petitioner Sri Chapal Mukherjee on 1.9.2016 as it revealed in the document. The answering OP further submits that all previous arrear billing amount should be paid and there is no scope of with drawling the arrear dues to the WBSEDCL and also submitted that the alleged meter is not defective or the same is not recording the consumption in normal way. The alleged meter has been tested by placing the check meter side by side. The petitioner has not been paying the outstanding bill. The petitioner is not entitled to get relief in the present suit. He has not sustained any sort of loss or injury rather it is correct to say that for withholding the legitimate claim of the WBSEDCL the govt. enterprises like OP Company is facing economic loss. This OP prayed that the present case has got no merit at all and liable to be dismissed.
The complainant filed affidavit in chief in which he assailed that the electricity connection through the meter being No.L2991248 is used by him for domestic purpose from the OP. after taking electric connection he used to pay the energy bill on and average Rs.80/- to Rs.120/- for every month. But in the month of June to August, 2016 the OP sent energy bill amounting to Rs.11,489/- which is imaginary, so the energy bill for the period June to Aug,2016 is to be rectified otherwise the complainant will suffer irreparable loss.
The OP filed affidavit in chief which is also the replica of the written version so it is needless to discuss.
Both sides filed affidavit in chief and written notes of arguments which are taken into consideration during the passing of final order.
The argument as advanced by the advocates of the parties heard in full.
From the discussion herein above, we find the following Issues/Points for consideration.
ISSUES/POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
1). Whether the Complainant Chapal Mukherjee is a ‘Consumer’ of the Opposite Party?
2).Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
3).Whether the OPs carried on unfair trade practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards the Complainant?
4).Whether the complainant proved his case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to him?
DECISION WITH REASONS
In the light of discussions here in above we find that the issues/points should be decided based on the above perspectives.
(1).Whether the Complainant Chapal Mukherjee is a ‘Consumer’ of the opposite party?
From the materials on record it is transparent that the Complainant is a “Consumer” as provided by the spirit of section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. As the complainant being the customer is consuming electricity as provided by the OP Company and he is paying bills so the petitioner is a consumer of the OP and it is admitted by the OP Company being the service provider.
(2).Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
Both the complainant and opposite party are residents/carrying on business within the district of Hooghly. The complaint valued within Rs.20,00,000/- limit of this Forum. So, this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case.
(3).Whether the opposite party carried on Unfair Trade Practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards the Complainant?
The opposite party being the largest Electric Supply Company throughout the state having a lot of offices, power stations, substations and power generating stations decorated with a lot of expert hands and running its business with goodwill for a long period and providing/rendering service for development of society as well as implementing a lot of Govt. programs. So the role of OP Company for the development of the society is unquestionable.
The O.P. herein is the Station Manager of an office of the largest electric supply company throughout the State of W.B. The Company WBSEDCL running its business throughout the state except territorial jurisdiction of Kolkata Corporation. The O.P. Company is providing power in the rural areas in different projects for a long period. That is why the consumers in the rural areas are highly grateful to the Company. While providing powers throughout the state it also suffers from many discrepancies. Like not sending/ preparing bills in due time or sending bills for a period when the powers are discontinued and not taking reading regularly as a result the consumers suffers from paying accumulated units at a higher rate and fails to provide powers to the consumers after taking quotation money. As a result the consumers suffer a lot and make their grievances for remedy before the appropriate Forums. The inaction/negligence/ discrepancies of the OP Company tantamount to deficiency of service for which the consumers are suffering a lot.
The case of the complainant is that the complainant has been paying electric bills amounting to Rs.80/- to Rs.120/- per month but in the bills for the months of June to August, 2016 it became Rs.11,489/- which is absurd & imaginary. The said bill for the billing month of June to August, 2016 is illegal. If the said bill is not rectified then the complainant will suffer irreparable loss. Getting the disputed bill from the OP the complainant then and there filed objection before the OP. The complainant is no way responsible to bear the deficiency of the service and unfair trade practice of the OP. The complainant is also suffering from mental pain and agony. If the OP disconnects the power connection of the complainant suddenly then the complainant will suffer loss. So the complainant filed the instant complaint before this Forum for praying a direction upon the OP, so that the power connection of the complainant may not be disconnected and also prayed ad -interim order not to disconnect the power connection of the complainant.
The sole OP denied the allegations as leveled against them and averred that the energy bill for the month of March,2016 to May, 2016 was prepared for consumption of the 47 units, So the energy bill for three months March- May,2016 within 1st due date Rs.250.01, Dec.15- Feb.2016 was done for consumption of 47 units within 1st due date Rs.243/- . The energy bill for June- August, 16 has been prepared as per consumption of 1444 units recorded in the energy meter. The energy bill amount for three months was Rs.11,097/- for the whole payment 1st due date. As a matter of fact after receipt of the application form Mr. Chapal Mukherjee vide receipt No.546 dated 2.6.2016 regarding the excessive reading of energy meter Sl. No.L2991248 being consumer ID-162198373 installation No. 5757077 the OP passed order for installation of a “Master / Check meter in series with the existing meter for comparison of the registered electrical energy or units to ensure as to whether existing energy meter is perfect or not. The same was done under order No.RBT/CCC/Ch Meter/655 dated 8.7.2016. The Master/ Challenge/ Check energy meter was installed as mentioned on 13.7.2016 and testing was completed on 15.8.2016. That after completion of the test it was found that both the energy meter have no differences or consumed or registered reading or unit. So the WBSEDCL came to the conclusion that the existing meter through which the petitioner is enjoying electricity is a perfect, good, and running meter and there is no scope to consider the said alleged meter as defective one. Entire procedure was done in presence of Subhankar Mukherjee the representative of the petitioner. The OP company issued another official letter vide RBT/CCC/Ch Meter/976 dated 31.8.2016 intimating the serviceability status of his existing energy meter which was received by the petitioner Sri Chapal Mukherjee on 1.9.2016 as it revealed in the document. The answering OP further submits that all previous arrear billing amount should be paid and there is no scope of with drawling the arrear dues to the WBSEDCL and also submitted that the alleged meter is not defective or the same is not recording the consumption in normal way. The alleged meter has been tested by placing the check meter side by side. The petitioner has not been paying the outstanding bill. The petitioner is not entitled to get relief in the present suit. He has not sustained any sort of loss or injury rather it is correct to say that for withholding the legitimate claim of the WBSEDCL the govt. enterprises like OP company is facing economic loss. This OP prayed that the present case has got no merit at all and liable to be dismissed.
It is true that having regard to the laudable object behind the legislation of the Act, to protect the interest of consumers, literal interpretation has to be placed on the scheme of the Act avoiding hyper technical approach. While passing any order regarding the billing dispute we have to think that the bill raised by the OP/WBSEDCL is public money. And if there is any dispute regarding the bill then the complainant should approach the Central Grievance Redressal Officer. The general phenomenon of electric connection is that the complainant is under obligation to pay bills as per his/ her consumption. As per Electricity Act, 2003 and West Bengal Regulatory Commission Regulation, 2004 in case of disputed or erroneous bill the power has vested to the Regulatory Authority to assess the said bill and in this respect the Consumer Forum has no power. If any dispute arising out of billing then this Forum has no authority to interfere. Any dispute rather than the billing dispute and theft & pilferage of power, only the deficiency of service of the OP is tenable before this Forum
After perusing the Xerox copy of bills it appears that the bill dated 10.12.2015 for consumption period Aug to Nov,15 in which the consumption is 47 units , total amount payable within first due date is Rs.243/- and the said bill also stated that the Meter L2991248 is seems defective. Other bill dated 11.03.2016 for consumption period Nov.15 to Feb.2016 in which the consumption is 48 units, total amount payable within first due date is Rs.241/- and the said bill also stated that the Meter L2991248 is seems defective. Other bill dated 01.06.2016 for consumption period March 16 to May,2016 in which the consumption is 1444 units, total amount payable within first due date is Rs.11,344/-. The notice u/s-56(i) of the Electricity Act, 2003 dated 27.10.2016 reflects that bill for the month of Oct,2016 is Rs.91/-, the notice dated 17.11.2016 transpires that bill for the month of Nov.2016 is Rs.91/- and the notice dated 20.12.2016 reflects the bill for the month of Dec.2016 is Rs.160/- the spot bill dated 24.11.2017 for the bill period Dec.2017 to Feb.2018 the consumption is 9 units. So after perusing the bills before the disputed and after the disputed bills there is no parity of consumption for which the complainant being perplexed made a complaint before the OP who on his turn installed a check meter to check the existing meter of the complainant. As there was no difference in the reading between the existing and the check meter so the OP is in the opinion that the existing meter is keeping proper reading. But the consumption for the period from March,16 to May,16 is in the higher side in comparison to other period. The said period is in the summer season so the consumption may be high but not to that extent. It is indeed surprising how such wide fluctuation in respect of energy consumption as recorded by the disputed meter during the period March, 2016 to May2016 escaped the attention of the OP. It being domestic service connection no doubt quarterly energy consumption to the tune 1444 units would appear to be on the higher side. Considering all these aspects in our considered opinion no reliance can be placed upon the reading registered by the disputed meter. We may refer the judgment of Hon’ble State Commission in CESC Ltd. -Vs- Smt. Nilima Ghorui the in FA No. A/1121/2014 in which the Hon’ble State Commission observed that how such wide fluctuation in respect of energy consumption during the period from September,2013 to December 2013 escaped the attention of the Appellant ( CESC Ltd.) and hold that no reliance can be placed upon the reading registered by such defective meter. After perusing the bills we are in the opinion that the complainant consumed 1444 units during the period from March, 2016 to May 2016 is not believable to us in comparison to bills of other months. So we are in the opinion to rectify the disputed bill dated 01.06.2016 for consumption period March, 2016 to May,2016 in accordance with the provision of sec.56 of the Electricity Act,2003 the electric charge due from him for each month calculated on the basis of average charge for electricity paid by him during the preceding six months .
4). Whether the complainant proved his case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to him?
The discussion made herein before, we have no hesitation to come in a conclusion that the complainant abled to prove his case. So the Opposite Party is liable to rectify the disputed bill taking average consumption for last six months.
ORDER
Hence, ordered that the complaint case being No.18/2017 be and the same is allowed on contest against the opposite party, with no order as to cost.
The Opposite Party is directed to rectify the bill dated 01.06.2016 for the consumption period March,2016 to May,2016 taking the principle adopted in sec.56 of Electricity Act,2003 i.e. the electric charge due from him for each month calculated on the basis of average charge for electricity paid by him during the preceding six months. The said OP is also directed to regenerate the disputed bill within 30 days from the date of this order as per the direction above and serve the complainant.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their Ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/ sent by ordinary post for information & necessary action.
