Order No. 09 Dt.05.07.2007
In brief, the petitioner’s case is that he has one domestic category electric connection bearing Service Connection No.5842/D and Consumer No.F010889, Con-ID-342017818. He used to pay regular electricity bills as per meter reading but the meter reader of the authority on 20.06.1998 remarked in the “Yellow Card” as ‘STOP’ while the reading of the meter was shown to 06068 units. Thereafter, he used to pay bill @400 units per month to the O.Ps. and on 23.06.2000 the O.P.s installed one new meter bearing No.HH938038 replacing the previous one recording 00001 on the New Yellow Card as existing reading. The petitioner received one bill dated 03.04.2007 with present reading as 24876 units when the reading was shown 24337 for the period from January 2007 to March 2007 i.e. 539 as advance unit and further advance units 2692 was added claiming dutiable 3231 units amounting Rs.17510/-. The petitioner asked for clarification of such inflated bill when the O.Ps. informed that normal bill for 539 units for 4.6.2007 and 2692 unit has been included as outstanding units from June 98 to June 2000 as per audit report. O.P. No.3 sent a notice for payment of Rs.5958/- against bill for the period 04/2007 within 10.5.2007 in default they would be compelled to disconnect the electric supply and the petitioner has become astonished to note that the O.Ps. did not claim the alleged outstanding units in earlier bills after 26.06.1998 to June 2000 and this contention gives rise to the present case.
The O.Ps. contest the case by filing joint written version admitting the fact that the notice has been sent for payment of Rs.5958/- against bill for the relevant period stating that in the event of failure to pay the amount within 10.05.07 the service connection will be discontinued and that they have claimed outstanding dues of Rs. 10,525/- as per audit report. The O.P.s have denied that the meter was ever stopped and stated that meter reading has shown consumption of 11960 units at the time of replacement on 23.06.2000. They have also claimed that the status of consumption of the petitioner was more than 700 units per quarter although the petitioner has paid electric bill for 400 units per quarter during the period in question and hence he is liable to pay the bill of energy consumed for his own purpose, and therefore, the O.P.s have prayed for dismissal of the case with cost.
On pleadings of both the parties the following points have emerged:
- Whether the service of O.P.s suffers from deficiency ?
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for ?
:DECISION WITH REASONS:
Point No.1:
The petitioner has paid all electric bills regularly for his domestic connection as has been stated by him as P.W. – 1, further alleging therein that though no meter reading was noted in the Card, yet the O.P. has charged fictitious amount of Rs.17,510/- and in support of his contention he has filed some documents which have been marked Ext.1 to 5. The electric bill (Ext.1) reveals that adjustment units have come therein as 2692 units and this P.W. – 1 has also filed copy of letter No.FS/E/17/29 of 13.4.2007 issued by Station Manager wherein a detailed list has been shown which is as follows:-
On 26.6.1998 the total units consumed shown therein as 06068 units and on 23.6.2000 total units consumed have been shown as 11960(the date when the meter was replaced) and the difference of total units consumed during the above period comes to 5892 units. The petitioner as P.W. – 1 has further alleged that the aforesaid letter (Ext.4) states about payment of 400 X 8 = 3200 units and as such the Station Manager has claimed that after deducting the number of units for which the payment has been made the petitioner is required to pay charge for (5892 – 3200) = 2692 units and that amount of consumption still remains unpaid.
On the basis of the testimony of the petitioner referred to hereinabove, the petitioner alleges that when the meter was left with the remark ‘STOP’ on 26.6.98 he has paid average bills, why he should now be compelled to make payment of such huge Quantum of money. The O.Ps. have filed the xerox copy of blue card (Ext.A) which manifests consumption of total unit as 11960 on 23.6.2000, on the date of replacement of meter and the remark shown in the column reading as “FR” which cannot but mean “Forward Reading” and this reading has not been challenged by the petitioner; on the contrary, the petitioner has relied on fresh of new meter which starts from 00001 on 23.6.2000 and the remark appearing therein “I/R” which cannot but mean “Initial Reading” and the word “remark” also appear therein. This Forum has referred in details only which appears in the Blue Card filed by the O.Ps. Ext.(A).
Much has been spoken and urged on behalf of the petitioner and documents have also been filed which have been marked Ext. 1 to 5, yet it seems curious to note why the petitioner has not been dared to file the original / Xerox copy of Yellow Card for the period shown in Ext.A filed by the O.P., which it produced could have shown the figure noted as 11960 units on 23.6.2000 and hence this Forum finds reasonable conclusion to arrive at that had that document been produced, it would have shown the status of consumption for the period from 6/98 to 6/2000.
In this connection be it noted that this Forum have made careful scrutiny of the units consumed per quarter for the period from 6/2000 to 3/2007 by the petitioner and the average consumption exceeds 700 units which is also evident from Ext.6. Admittedly, the petitioner has paid electricity bill @400 units average per quarter for the period from 9/98 to 6/2000; and in that view of the matter claim of the petitioner about spurious amount for electricity consumption for the aforesaid period does not find any leg to stand on and the testimony of the petitioner does not deserve any credibility on this point.
Thus, giving our anxious thought over the matter there is no reasonable ground to hold that the service of the O.Ps. suffers from deficiency which disposes of the present point in the negative.
Point No.2
In the result the case fails.
Proper fees have been paid.
Hence, Ordered,
that Malda D.F. Case No.29/2007 be and the same stands dismissed against all the 3 (three) O.Ps.
In the peculiar circumstances there will no order as to cost.
Let a copy of this order be given to both the parties free of cost at once.
