Smt. Sucharu Ray,

wife of late Abinas Chandra Ray,

of P-106, Benaras Road, P.S. Liluah,

District – Howrah.-------------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

1.      The Chairman,

WBSEDCL, Bidyut Bhaban,

Salt Lake,

Kolkata – 7000 91.

2.      Station Manager,

Dasnagar Group Electric Supply,

WBSEDCL, P.O. Dasnagar, P.S. Jagacha,

District – Howrah.-------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.

                                                P    R    E     S    E    N     T

President     :     Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.

Member      :      Shri P.K. Chatterjee.

Member       :     Smt. Jhumki Saha.

                                                 F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

1.                  The instant case was filed by complainant U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986

 as amended against alleging deficiency in service U/S 2(1)(g), 2(1)(o) of the C.P. Act, 1986, wherein  the complainant has  prayed for direction upon the O.P. nos. 1 & 2 for adjustment of the erratic bills sent to the complainant.

2.                  Smt. Sucharu Ray, a 96 years old lady, being the consumer of meter no.

1062958, consumer no. being 031182 received the electric bill from Dec’11 to Feb’12 with shock and surprise as the earlier bill for March,2011 till May,2011 was Rs. 379/-. She was further shocked to learn that the bill for March,2012 to May,2012 came to Rs. 2,834/-. Having no other alternative the complainant has prayed for relief against such erratic bills dated 03-07-2012 and 17-08-2012. Hence the complaint.

3.                  The O.P. nos. 1 & 2 in their  written version stated that the existing electro

magnetic meter has been changed by electro static meter and the same has been arresting a correct unit consumption and the bill for the period Dec’11 to Feb’12 has been paid by the complainant; that attempts have been made for arresting correct consumption by installing a challenged meter / checked meter on 10-04-2012 against disputed bills for the period of March,2012 to May,2012 ; that the complainant prayed for installments for payment of the bills for the period of March,2012 to August,2012 and the same was granted. So the complaint  is fit to be dismissed. 

3.         Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :

i)          Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.  ?

ii)                  Whether the complainant is  entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

4.      Both the points are  taken up together for consideration. On scrutiny it appears that

there was no dispute regarding billing from March,2011 till May,2012 and the bill amount was Rs. 379/-. Suddenly the bill amount for Dec’11 to Feb’12 became sporadic and the amount soared to Rs. 1,574/- as the meter was changed by the O.P. and new meter was installed. With much hardship the 96 years old lady paid the amount.  The billing amount started from March,2012 to May,2012 showing the bill amount of  Rs. 2,834/-. As she registered complaint, the O.P. installed a check meter. Again the bill dated 03-07-2012 showed the amount of Rs. 2,924/-. For nonpayment of the same her electric connection was snapped. When the complainant paid Rs. 1,007/- on 17-08-2012, the connection was restored.  

5.      Unfortunately on 17-08-2012 the O.P. sent another bill showing Rs. 6,047/-. But

complainant was terribly shocked for such unjustified bill.  The complainant has challenged these two bills dated 03-07-2012 for an amount of Rs. 2,924/- and bill dated 17-08-2012 for an amount of Rs. 6,047/-.  

6.      Whatever be the argument on the part of the O.Ps. that they allowed the prayer for

Installments or  that the complainant paid Rs. 107/- towards first installment out of six installments, such reasoning appears to us most fragile. This is because complainant filed complaint letters on 21-03-2012, 30-07-2012, 14-08-2012 and lawyer’s letter on 30-07-2012. After installation of new meter ( electro statatic ) how the bills sent on 14-03-2012 can be so exorbitant? If we  scan the previous bills we  get the unjustified squeezing tendency of the O.P. For December, 2011 to  February,2012 the amount was Rs. 1,574/- which was paid by the complainant with due hardship.        

7.      The complaint was filed on 27-09-2012. The electric bills issued in favour of the

complainant for the month of Dec’12 to Feb’13 shows the charge amount as Rs. 491/-. If we take up the previous bills of June’09 to Aug’09 we find that the amount figured as Rs. 666/-. Likewise, the bills for Dec’09 to Feb’10 stood for Rs. 493/- and March,2011 to May’11 stood as Rs. 379/-.

8.      Now if we take the ratio of the above mentioned bills we get the positive result i.e.,

it has true likeness with the bills for Dec’12 to Feb’13. The amount charged never  raises the eye browse of a man of common prudence. The interim phase of installation of challenged meter / checked meter is full of anomalies and incorrect registering of the units. No acceptable argument is forthcoming on behalf of the O.P. as to how the bill dated 03-07-2012 and 17-08-2012 can be so exorbitant and how the subsequent bill of December, 2012 to February, 2013 can be so generous.  Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the bills dated 03-07-2012 and 17-08-2012 was the outcome of faulty meter and it requires to be cancelled. There is no allegation of obstruction of electricity from the  same meter as the instance of erratic billing was within the knowledge of the O.P. It is not property explained by the O.P. as to how the same meter can register huge amounts for the bills of 03-07-2012 and 17-08-2012 carrying the amount of Rs. 224/- and Rs. 6,047/- respectively and again it can register normal bill for the period from Dec’12 till Feb’13. That the existing electric meter is defective and registers units sporadically is established from the erratic billing. If the O.P. is not vigilant, a bad impression is generated among the consumers. However, the two bills in dispute appears to us anomalous ex-facie.  There cannot be any other alternative than to cancel the two bills.

      In the result, the complaint succeeds. Both the points are accordingly disposed of.

      Hence,

O     R     D      E      R      E        D               

      That the C. C. Case No. 124 of 2012 ( HDF 124 of 2012 )  be  and the same is allowed on contest but without cost against the O.Ps.  

      The O.Ps.  be directed to remove the existing meter or to repair the same to avoid sporadic bill in future and not to disconnect the electric line of the complainant. The bills dated 03-07-2012 and 17-08-2012 be cancelled and the amount paid by the complainant, if any towards installments be adjusted in her future bills.  

      No order as to compensation and costs.

      The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.

      Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.