CONSUMER CASE NO :- 16/2021
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
The case of complainant Shri Binoy Krishna Das, in brief, is that he is the only son of Late Sunil Chandra Das whose house is located at village- Kalinagar part-ii, P.O. - kalinagar, Dist.- Hailakandi ( Assam) and the said house is connected with domestic electricity line for consumption of power from the supply of Assam Power Distribution Company Ltd. in short APDCL. That the meter installed in the house of the complainant’s father is borne with no. 1380000375 against consumer no.-138000000375 ( old KN- 105/D/25 ). That the father of the complainant died on 03/05/2014 and after his death the complainant has been paying the amount of bills charged upon the consumption of electricity power in the aforesaid meter through APDCL office of Badarpur Electrical Sub-Division. That the consumption of electric energy in respect of the aforesaid meter for the month of March, April and May’2020 was around 20 (twenty) units per month and amounts charged was Rs. 181/-, 231/- and 197/-. But the bills for the months of July’2020, August’2020 & September’2020 showed in Paytm at Rs.230/- , 606/- & 608/- which the complainant paid on 31/07/2020 , 26/08/2020 and 05/10/2020. According to the complainant the said meter has been set up with the numerical reading in its highest level at 9999 and has become stagnant. It has been alleged by the complainant that the meter reader has recorded the units of consumption on notional basis upon his own will and did not consult the units previously consumed while the meter had been functionable. It is stated that though the complainant wrote letter to the O.Ps. requesting to prepare the bill on the actual reading and resolve the matter early but the O.Ps. did not take any step. The O.Ps have not taken any step for resetting the numerical system in the meter nor they have replaced the meter. They also have not adjusted the excess amount paid for the month of July, August & September’2020. It has been claimed that the complainant has suffered loss, mental agony & harassment . Under the circumstances, it has been prayed for passing an award of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony, pain & harassment, award of Rs.1,000/- for expenses and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the suit. In addition it also has been prayed to issue direction to adjust the excess amount paid by the complainant against the bills for the month of July, August & September’ 2020 etc. etc.
The Opposite Parties have filed written objection stating, interalia, that the case is not maintainable, that there is no cause of action, that the complainant is not a consumer under the provisions of the Act etc. It has been stated by the answering O.Ps. that in the month of August meter was found defective and this led to preparation of energy bills on estimated basis as per APDCL norms. It is stated that in case of defective meter the consumer shall be billed on the basis of average consumption of past three billing cycle. The O.Ps. have denied the allegations made in the complaint petition. It is further denied that the complainant suffered any loss or injury. It is ,therefore, prayed for rejection of the case with compensatory cost of Rs.5,000/-.
In support of the case complainant Sri Binoy Krishna Das has submitted his evidence on affidavit as sole prosecution witness (PW) and has also exhibited some documents. On the other hand, from the side of Opposite Party evidence on affidavit of one Sri Bipul Kumar Paul has been submitted as DW-1 and also some documents have been exhibited. Thereafter both sides have also submitted written argument in addition of oral argument put forward by the learned counsels of the respective parties. Perused the entire evidence on record. Let us now appreciate the evidence below.
In his evidence as PW the complainant has reiterated the same facts as has been narrated in his complaint petition. It has been stated by the PW that he is the only son of Late Sunil Chandra Das and he has been residing in the address of his father at village- Kalinagar part-ii, P.O. - kalinagar, Dist.- Hailakandi ( Assam) and the said house is connected with domestic electricity line for consumption of power from the supply of Assam Power Distribution Company Ltd. in short APDCL. That the meter installed in the house of the complainant’s father is borne with no. 1380000375 against the consumer no.-138000000375 ( old KN- 105/D/25 ). According to the PW his father died on 03/05/2014 and after his death he has been paying the amount of bills charged upon the consumption of electricity power in the aforesaid meter through APDCL office of Badarpur Electrical Sub-Division. That the consumption of electric energy in respect of the aforesaid meter for the month of March, April and May’2020 was around 20 (twenty) units per month and amounts charged was Rs. 181/-, 231/- and 197/- and the same was paid by him. It is further stated by the PW that the bills for the months of July’2020, August’2020 & September’2020 showed in Paytm at Rs.230/- , 606/- & 608/- and the same was also paid by him on 31/07/2020 , 26/08/2020 and 05/10/2020 respectively. According to the PW the said meter has been set up with the numerical reading in its highest level at 9999 and has become stagnant. It has been alleged that the meter reader had recorded the units of consumption on notional basis upon his own will and did not consult the units previously consumed while the meter had been functionable. The charge imposed in the bills for the months of July, August & September’2020 was exhorbitant The PW has further alleged that though he wrote letter to the O.Ps. requesting to prepare the bill on the actual reading and resolve the matter early but the O.Ps. did not take any step. The O.Ps. also have not taken any step for resetting the numerical system in the meter nor they have replaced the meter. They also have not taken any step to prepare the revised bills since July’2020 nor they have adjusted the excess amount paid for the month of July, August & September’2020. It has been claimed by the PW that he has suffered loss, mental agony & harassment etc and he is entitled to get compensation. In support of his averments the PW has exhibited Ext.-1 to Ext.-12 documents. On the other hand, DW-1 in his evidence has not disputed the bills exhibited by the complainant issued against consumer bearing number 138000000375 in the name Sunil Chandra Das. It is also not in dispute in the case that bill was paid upto September’2020 in respect of the said consumer number. But the version of DW-1 is that in the month of August meter was found defective and this led to preparation of energy bills on estimated basis as per APDCL norms. Bill amounting to Rs.606/- was served in the month of August’2020 as per average consumption ( 3.3 units/day), 116 units and bill amounting to Rs.608/- was served in the month of September’2020 as per average consumption ( 3.3 units/day), 113 units. It has been stated by DW-1 that the complainant enjoyed the power with full knowledge as regards the non-functioning of the meter in question and also without changing the meter. Further contention of DW-1 is that the complainant was also not agree to pay meter cost. DW-1 has exhibited in the case four nos. of documents vide Ext.-A,B, C & D.
In his evidence DW-1 has claimed that the meter existing in the name of Sunil Chandra Das, the father of the complainant, was found defective in the month of August’2020 and this led to them to prepare further energy bills on estimated basis as per APDCL norms. It also has been alleged by DW-1 in his evidence that the consumer was enjoying the power without changing the meter though he had full knowledge as regards the non-functioning of the meter in question. But the fact remains that the onus to repair/change the defective meter lies on the O.P. though at the cost to be paid by the consumer. The evidence of DW-1 goes to show that meter cost bill for changing of the meter of the complainant was generated by them only on August’2021 but the consumer was not agreed to pay. DW-1 has also exhibited the copy of the letter and meter cost bill vide Ext.-D. There is nothing in the case record to show that the complainant took step for installation of a new meter by changing the defective one after Ext.-D was issued. As the complainant did not take step for replacement of the defective meter by paying the meter cost bill even after persuation by the O.P. so, according to us, the complainant is only entitled to get relief in respect of the bills for the months of August’2020 to August’2021. The delay in taking step by the O.P. for rectification of the defective meter shows disservice and negligence towards the complainant. Under the circumstances it is ordered as below-
The O.Ps. shall fix the charge of bill for the months from August’2020 to August’2021 by taking average of the bills of previous three months. In addition, the O.P. shall pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2,000/- ( Rupees two thousand) only for mental agony & harassment and shall also pay further amount of Rs. 3,000/- ( Rupees three thousand ) only towards cost of litigation. The O.P. shall submit fresh bill to the complainant after deducting the aforesaid Rs. 2,000/- + 3,000/- plus the excess amount, if any, paid by the complainant for the months of August’2020 & September’2020.
With the above direction and reliefs the case stands allowed on contest against the O.Ps. The judgment is delivered on this 10th day of Februrary’2023 under our signature & seal.
