AS PER A.A.JAIN, MEMBER
1 This complaint is filed u/s 12 of C.P.Act 1986 by Rajkumar s/o. Shankarlal Khandelwal r/o. Deshbandhu Ward, Gondia Consumer No. 430010150897 against the Deputy Executive Engineer, M.S.E.Distribution Co.Ltd. Gondia for directing the O.P. to correct the bill from Oct. 2004 to April 2005 and reduce the bills charges of 1000 unit which was recorded by mistake . And also payment of cost and harassment charges.
2 Complaint case in short is that, he is a consumer of opponent and on 8-8-2004 the electric meter of O.P was showing reading 8981 and on October 2004 meter reader of O.P mistakenly recorded reading 8181, The only diference in thousand’s figure i.e. 8 in place of 9. And O.P also sent bill by recording previous bill 7981 for Oct.2004. The mistake was continued till April 2005. Thus in April 2005 Electric bill of 1113 unit charged in stead of 113 unit. Complainant has given so many representation but O.P failed to comply greviences of consumer. So this complaint was filed (Ex. 1 to 12).
3 In response to notice u/s 13 of C.P.Act 1986 O.P has filed his version on Ex.22 and denied the charges of complainant O.P replied that complainant is not a consumer of M.S.E.D.CO., O.P. accepted meter reading 8981 on August 2004 with previous reading at 8808. In the month of October 2004 the meter reading came to be recorded as 8181 . It clearly indicates that meter has gone in reverse due to some foul play by consumer. Thereafter the meter showed forward reading in subsequent month . The consumer was charged for 162 unit in October 2004 and meter was replaced with final reading 10315. The old replaced meter on testing by O.P found to be slow by 28.5% due to calibration error and was sent back to scrap. O.P replied that complaint is false and frivlous and is liable to be rejected with cost.
4 After verifying all the documents and record and on the above pleading the following points arise for our determination and we record our finding against them as below :
Points Finding
A Whether the complainant is a consumer ? Yes
B Whether the complainant is entitled to relief as sought ? Yes
C What order ? As per final Order.
REASONS
5 The complainant is son of Shankarlal Khandelwal who has taken electric connection from O.P. Thus he is legal heir and also ‘beneficiary of services.’ So section 2 (d) (ii) clearly indicates that complainant is beneficiary of electric services and paid electric charges. Thus complainant is a consumer of O.P.
6 The O.P. filed statement of bill record as follow : (Ex. 23 (1,2,3)
Period | Previous Reading | Current Reading | Unit Consumed |
April 2003 | 7853 | 7918 | 65 |
June 2003 | 7918 | 8114 | 196 |
August 2003 | 8114 | 8231 | 117 |
Oct 2003 | 8231 | 8317 | 86 |
Dec 2003 | 8317 | 8408 | 91 |
Feb 2004 | 8408 | 8491 | 83 |
April 2004 | 8491 | 8586 | 95 |
June 2004 | 8586 | 8808 | 222 |
August 2004 | 8808 | 8981 | 173 |
Oct 2004 | 8981 | 8181 | 162 |
(With remark Faulty meter) |
Dec. 2004 | 8181 | 8441 | 260 |
Feb.2005 | 8441 | 8638 | 197 |
April 2005 | 8638 | 9751 | 1113 |
June 2005 | 9751 | 10015 | 264 |
Aug. 2005 | 10015 | 10220 | 205 |
Sept. 2005 | 00 | 263 | 263 |
( Meter Changed) |
Oct. 2005 | | | 167 |
Nov. 2005 | 82 | 212 | 130 |
Dec.2005 | 212 | 355 | 143 |
Jan. 2006 | 355 | 408 | 53 |
Feb.2006 | 408 | 507 | 99 } Filed by Complt. 98 } (Ex. 24) 63 } |
Mar. 2006 | 507 | 605 |
April 2006 | 605 | 668 |
The above table clearly shows that there was fault in recording the reading. Then again meter has shown correct reading and the consumption of electric energy was approximately same as previous record. If the reading of Month Oct.2004 treated as 9181 then there is no any dispute. This fault in recording meter reading was made excess billing of 1000 unit in April 2005. The condition of meter shown in chart (Statement Ex.23(2). NORMAL i.e. meter is not faulty. And when meter was changed and test report given that lead seal found good and condition of meter is satisfactory. After changing of meter the consumption is approximately same from Oct. 2005 to April 2006 . There is no meter reading card at the house of customer.
So our finding is in affirmative for point (B)
In result we record finding as above and we propose to pass the following order.
ORDER
The complaint is allowed.
1 That, the opposite party is directed to correct the bill from Oct. 2004 till April 2005 by correcting current and previous reading by 1000 unit and reduce the charges of 1000 unit from the bill of complainant within one month from the date of this order.
2 The O.P. is directed to pay Rs.1000/- as cost of his case and Rs.1000/- for mental and physical harassment.
