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 Sambhunath Chatterjee - President
Miss. Swapna Saha - Member
Shri Siddhartha Ganguli - Member
Consumer Complaint No. 33/2014
Sri Kalyan Kr. Chatterjee
S/o Late Kamala Pati Chatterjee
Vill.: Chakbhabani Shibtali.
PO & PS: Balurghat,
Dist. Dakshin Dinajpur ………………Complainant(s)
V-E-R-S-U-S
1. The D.E. & Divisional Manager,
Dakshin Dinajpur (D) Division,
West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd.
P.O & P.S: Balurghat, Dist.: Dakshin Dinajpur.
2. The Assistant Manager (P & A)
Dakshin Dinajpur (D) Division,
West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd.
P.O & P.S: Balurghat, Dist.: Dakshin Dinajpur.
3. The A. E. & Station Manager,
West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd.
Patiram Consumer Care Centre,
PO & P.S.: Balurghat.
Dist.: Dakshin Dinajpur. …………………Opposite Parties
Ld. Advocate(s):
For complainant …………… - Shri Samit Bhowmik &
- Shri Benoy Brata Bhowmik
For OP Nos. 1, 2 & 3 …………… - Shri Sudip Chatterjee
Date of Filing : 24.17.2014
Date of Disposal : 11.09.2015
Contd…P/2
Judgment & Order dt. 11.09.2015
Fact of the case in brief is that the complainant is a bona fide consumer under West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. (W.B.S.E.D.C.L.) having consumer ID No. 433004740 the complainant has been paying bills for the consumption of electricity sent by the department concerned. During continuous consumption the OPs stopped meter reading from the house of the complainant and the complainant for several times went to office of the OPs but got no relief. Lastly, on 9.102013 went to office of the OPs for lodging a complaint but the same was not received ultimately the complainant was sent an application on 9.10.2013 through Currier Service.
In spite of the best efforts made by the complainant to have the bills from the OPs but the bills were not provided. Subsequently, on 12.3.2014 the OPs sent a bill to the complainant on 12.3.2014 showing the consumption of electricity was made by the complainant of 16,478 units. The complainant deprived from tariff benefit and also prayed for re-issue of the bill as per actual consumption for three months and the complainant was under compulsion had to pay the first quarter of the said bill on 19.4.2014.
The complainant received three bills with a single billing date on 11.6.2014 out of the said bills in the first bill the previous meter reading has been shown as 0.00 unit consumed on meter No.7S-0258619 and 5318 units consumed between the period from 7.9.2013 to 7.12.2013. In the second bill 1224 units consumed on meter No.G-119397 between 7.12.2013 and 3.3.2014. In the third bill 3545 units consumed on meter No.G-119397 between 3.3.2014 and 3.6.2014. The complainant received the bill he become astonished and found that inflated amount was demanded by the OPs.
The complainant submitted two applications for issuance a fresh bill but the OPs did not take any action for which the complainant had to
Contd…P/3
file this case praying for direction upon the OPs for issuance of a fresh bill on the basis of actual units consumed by the complainant during the said period and also prayed for compensation of Rs.50,000/-.
The OP Nos. 1 & 2 have contested the case by filing written version whereby the OPs denied all the material allegations of the complaint. The OPs admitted that Kalyan Kr. Chatterjee is a consumer under Balurghat CCC of W.B.S.E.D.C.L. vides Consumer ID No. 433004740 having its old meter No. 750258619 and a new meter No. G-119397. In the said meter the units consumed by the complainant up to 9727 units, for which the complainant had no grievance. According to convention and system the area of the customer care centre has been divided in 7 several zones for collecting the proper meter reading by commission agents and takes meter reading every three months consecutively. Accordingly when the meter reader went to take meter reading in the house of the complainant as the door was locked so he could not take meter reading in time. After three months later the cycle of reading automatically changed and the bill was generated on the basis of the said reading.
As per policy of the government old meter was changed and a new meter was replaced being meter No. G-1119397 on 11.7.2013 and prior to that as the door was found locked as estimated bill was sent to the complainant up to 7.9.2013 of 8400 units. After receiving the complaint dt. 28.2.2014 by the department an inspection was held and found that the actual consumption in the old meter was shown 8303 units but an estimated bill of 8400 units but that means the authority has already taken bill amount of 97 units in excess, so as the new meter should have to start from 0000 but the OP generated the bill from 97 units by deducting the excess unit. In the new digital/ electric meter there is no chance of any unit left availed by the consumers. According to the system of company when in any meter unit consumption is shown very high then for that period after checking the meter and no bill is sent
Contd…P/4
to the customer. This period is called un-billing period. When in the new meter excessive consumption is shown and inspection is held and thereafter the bill is prepared. Here in this case when the bill for unpaid period was sent to the consumer and after filing this case again it was inspected and found that the meter was in order.
During checking of the meter it was found that there was seven number of ceiling fans, 20-22 number of ACs, two number refrigerators, running water pump, water heater and several other connections were found and the above mentioned units were consumed by the consumer. After filing this case the OP again wanted to check the meter technically by installing a new meter by the side of the actual meter and technical staff installed a challenge meter on 29.11.2014 in the house of the complainant and meter reading taken step by step and the final reading for two meters of one the original meter and other the challenge meter was found the same reading and it was accepted by the complainant and put his signature on the report card. So there is no defect as previously found and also for the second time with the permission of the court which was taken subsequently.
As the complainant consumption of electricity and meter was technically found correct and as such the quantum of unit appeared in the said meter was an actual units consumed by the complainant, therefore, the complainant is liable to pay the amount. Accordingly, the OPs prayed for dismissal of the case.
On the basis of the pleadings of the respective parties following points are to be determined:-
- Whether the complainant consumed lesser unit than that of claim made by the OP No. 1?
- Whether the meter remained defective?
- Whether there was deficiency in rendering service on the part of OPs?
- Is the complainant entitled to get relief as prayed for?
Contd…P/5
DECISION WITH REASONS
All the points are taken together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of the said fact.
It is contention of the complainant that the consumer / complainant having two meters one is old meter and another is new meter. The OPs stopped taking meter reading. The complainant wrote applications on 9.10.2013 and 28.2.2014 for issuance of bill. The OP No. 1 sent a bill on 12.3.2014 for the period from 8.3.2013 to 7.9.2014 i.e. for 6 months. In the bill dt. 12.3.2014 the meter reading has shown as 16,156 units to 16,478 units i.e. 322 units in respect of old meter. The complainant for the said reason deprived from tariff benefit. The complainant went to office of the OPs for re-issuance of bill as per actual consumption for three months but the OPs stated that if payment is not paid they will disconnect the service connection of the complainant, as a result which the complainant had to pay the first quarter of the said bill on 19.4.2014.
Subsequently, the complainant received another bill dt. 11.6.2014 and out of the said bill the first bill the previous meter reading has been shown as 0.00 unit consumed in respect of meter No.7S-0258619 and 5318 units consumed from 97 units to 5415 units. So far as the meter No.G-119397 during the period from 7.9.2012 to 7.12.2013 it was shown 5318 units were consumed. In the second bill it was shown the complainant consumed 1224 units between 7.12.2013 and 3.3.2014 and in the third bill the unit consumption was shown 3545 units between 3.3.2014 to 3.6.2014 because of the defective meter huge quantity of units were shown to have been consumed by the complainant but the actually no such consumption was made by the complainant due to defect in the meter the said consumption was shown. The Ld. Lawyer for the complainant emphasized that arbitrarily the complainant was compelled to pay the bill and for which the bill for the first quarter was paid by the complainant. Though the complainant
Contd…P/6
raised objection but no action was taken on behalf of the OPs for rectification of the bill. The complainant visited the office of the OPs and submitted a representation alleging in his complaint but no action was taken as such the complainant had no other alternative but to file this case for redressal of his grievance.
Ld. Lawyer for the OPs submitted that the previously meter No. was 450258619 and because of the policy of the government new meter was installed and being the new meter No. G-119397. So far as the old meter is concerned the complainant has no grievance. It is the convention and system area of the customer care centre has been divided in several zones for collecting the proper meter reading. Accordingly, when the meter reader went to record the meter reading in the house of the complainant as the door was locked as such the meter reader could not take reading and naturally again after three months later the cycle for reading automatically came and the bill also generated according to that basis. After installation of new meter on 11.7.2013 and as the door was locked and an estimated bill was sent to the complainant up to 7.9.2013 on 8400 units. After receiving a complaint from the complainant the department held inspection and in the old meter consumption was shown 8303 units and since earlier served estimated bill of 8400 units and as the authority had already taken the bill amount of 97 units in excess and so after installation of new meter though reading ought to have been started from 0000 but the OP generated a bill from 97 units by deducting the excess units. Since new meter reading consumption had shown very high consumption the inspection was held and found that the new meter was accurate and units consumed as shown in the bill was correct. Thereafter the bill for unpaid period was sent to the complainant and after filing of this case and an inspection was held in respect of said meter and the complainant remained present. During the said inspection he put his signature on the inspection report on 19.12.2014.
Contd…P/7
Therefore, it cannot be said that there was any defect in the said meter or there was no any demand of excess amount from the complainant on the basis of wrong units which was not consumed by the complainant.
Ld. Lawyer for the OPs argued that on inspection in the house of the complainant that there was several ceiling fans, 20-22 number of AC machines, freeze, running water pump, water heater and other several connections were found which justified consumption of electricity made by the complainant. Ld. Lawyer for the OPs emphasized that after filing of this case OPs again wanted to check the meter technically by installing a new meter side of the actual meter and the prior of the OPs was allowed by this Forum and technical staff installed of challenge meter on 29.11.2014 in the house of Kalyan Chatterjee and meter reading was taken step by step and the final reading of two meters one of original meter and other was challenge meter and it was found the same reading and it was accepted by the complainant and put his signature on the report card. In view of the said fact that Ld. Lawyer for the OPs prayed for dismissal of the case.
Considering the submission of the respective parties it appears that dispute arose after installation of the new meter and also meter reading had no access in the house of the complainant to record the consumption of electricity made by the complainant. The complainant claimed that the new meter was defective and since meter reader did not record the reading of the meter and on the basis of subsequent reading of the meter the bill was sent covering six months which deprived the complainant from getting the tariff benefit. From the materials on record it appears that due to non-accessibility of meter reader the reading could not be held and subsequently after recording the meter bills were sent for the six months. Here we must consider that when the complainant found that meter reading was not made by the meter reader, he ought to have brought to the notice of the OPs but he did not take any step and he went on consuming the electricity without
Contd…P/8
paying any amount for the period during which reading was not made at least he could have visited the office of the OP-1 and could have gathered information as to why the bill was not sent. Subsequently, when it was detected after receiving the complaint from the complainant on 28.2.2014 an inspection was held and it was found that old meter has shown 8303 units but the estimated bill was served of 8400 units which was adjusted after installation of the new meter which starts from 0000 but the OP No. 1 generated the bill from 97 units by deducting access units.
It is also found from the materials on record that when it was found that consumption was shown excessive after installation of new meter an inspection was held and found that the meter remained accurate and there was no defect in recording the consumption of electricity. It is also found from the materials on record that the OPs installed a challenge meter and technical staff took step by step in respect of actual meter and challenge meter and it was found that the reading of both the meters were found correct and report card prepared. The complainant put his signature on the said card, therefore it is well established that the new meter had not defect for which it had shown the excessive units consumed by the complainant but the actual consumption was made by the complainant was shown in the said meter. Moreover, all the OPs took all sorts of technical measures to ascertain the defect as alleged by the complainant but no defect was found and the actual consumption was shown in the new meter which was also admitted by the complainant by putting his signature on the meter reading card. In order to deprive the OP No. 1 from getting of electricity charge false plea was adopted by the complainant by making false allegation of defective meter which the complainant has failed to prove and thereby the complainant will not be entitled to get any relief from this Forum.
Since, the amount involved in this case was Rs.85,546/- in order to give some sort of relief to the complainant and we have thought it
Contd…P/9
proper to allow the complainant to pay the said amount in 7 (seven) equal installment of Rs.10,000/- each and last installment is to be paid Rs.15,546/-. Thus, all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
that the instant petition of complaint CC No.33 of 2014 is allowed in part on contest without any cost. The complainant is directed to pay outstanding entire amount of Rs.85,546/- by paying Rs.10,000/- each month in 7 (seven) installments and last installment will be paid by the complainant to the tune of Rs.15,546/-. The first of such installment is to be paid within 30th September, 2015 and subsequent installments are to be paid within 15 day of each succeeding month.
The complainant must pay the current bill that will be sent to him by the OP No. 1.
Let a plain copy of this order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost.
Dictated & corrected
………Sd/-….…….
(Sambhunath Chatterjee)
President
We concur,
……Sd/-..…… ………Sd/-……..
(S. Saha) (S. Ganguli)
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-
