The Complainant filed this case u/s 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 as amended upto date.

In brief the case of the Complainant is that the Complainant is a Consumer of WBSEDCL and used to pay electric bill regularly.  The Complainant stated that most of the time during the year he used to stay at Kolkata for earning livelihood and his premises remains close under lock and key.  So, most of the time there was no electric consumption in his premises but he received excessive quarterly electric bill for the month of April, May and June – 2015.  The Complainant paid that bills without any debate ; but afterwards he received highly excessive bill for the month of July, August and September – 2015 amounting to Rs.1,532.83 though his premises remained under lock and key.  The Complainant made objection against that bill.  Besides, he lodged a complain before electric office against the defective meter no.45490136 of his premises.

After receiving the complain the O.P. replaced the defective meter of the Complainant but with another old defective meter and reported to CCC as “Regeneration Case”.  But no such regeneration has been made and the electric bills in question have been prepared with that old defective meter.  The Complainant did not pay that electric bill which was made on the basis of that the defective meter and erroneous reading.  The next quarterly bill for the month of October, November & December, 2015 was also made from that defective meter mentioning the outstanding due of Rs.1,532.04.  The Complainant sent

several petitions to the electric office in connection with excessive billing and defective meter but the O.P. did not pay any heed.  The Complainant is apprehended regarding the disconnection of his electric line and finding no other alternative filed this case praying for the direction upon the O.P. to change the defective meter and to rectify the disputed and erroneous bill dated 15-07-2015 and 08-10-2015 which were prepared on the bassis of defective meter and other reliefs.

The record shows that notice upon the O.P. has been duly served and the O.P. received the same by putting signature on the AD Card.  Ld. Advocate for the O.P. also appeared before this Forum without filing Vokalatnama and several time petitions has been filed by him for filing W.V. and Vokalatnama on several dates.  But thereafter, neither Ld. Advocate for the O.P. filed any Vokalatnama or W.V. nor he appeared further to contest with the case.  Finally, the case was heard exparte against the O.P.

The Complainant filed written argument.  After hearing Ld. Advocate for the Complainant following points are necessary to discuss for the determination of the case.

                                                               Points for Determination

1) Whether the Complainant is a Consumer under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986 ?

2) Whether this Forum has jurisdiction to try this case.

3)  Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.

4)  Whether the Complainant is entitled to get any relief or reliefs as prayed for ?

                                                            Decision with reasons

Point no. 1.  Evidently, the Complainant has electric service connection to his premises and the O.P. issued the regular bill in the name of the Complainant vide Consumer ID no.233021712.

Therefore, the Complainant is a Consumer of the O.P. u/s 2(1) (d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986  as amended upto date.

Point – 2 : Total valuation of the case is far less than the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum.

The Branch Office of O.P. is situated within Bankura district.  So, this Forum has both pecuniary as well as territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present case.

Point no. – 3 & 4 : Both points are inter related to each other and taken up together for discussion for the sake of convenience and brevity.

At the time of hearing the Complainant stated that most of the time during the year he used to stay at Kolkata for earning his livelihood and his premises where the electric connection is question has been installed remains under lock and key and he does not consume any electric power most of the time of the year.  Yet the O.P. has issued excessive bill dated 13-07-2015 amounting to Rs.1532.83. 

The Complainant again stated that the electric meter of his premises is defective and several time he prayed before the O.P. to change the same; but the concerned authority of the O.P. did not take any effective measure to change the defective meter and prepared the excessive bill on the basis of the erroneous reading taken from the defective meter and the Complainant did not agree to pay that excessive erroneous bill.  The Complainant further stated that the O.P. issued another bill dated 08-10-2015 for the next quarter which was also on the basis of the erroneous reading taken from that defective meter mentioning outstanding amount of Rs.1,532.04 and he is frighten that a further excessive bill may be prepared for him on the basis of that defective meter. 

In support of his statement the Complainant filed Xerox copy of an application dated 24-06-2014 and Xerox copy of electric bills dated 13-07-2015 and 08-10-2015.  On verifying the above mentioned electric bills we find in both of the bills the meter number were mentioned as T2066671 and in both the bills it was mentioned at the lower portion that the “Meter T2066671 is seems defective”.  Therefore, it is clear that those two electric bills were made on the basis of the reading taken from that defective meter.  Hence, it can be concluded that those two bills were erroneous and disputed bills.  The Xerox copy of application shows that the Complainant lodged complain before the O.P. praying for the replacement of the defective meter.

In the instant case, after receiving the notice Ld. Lawyer for the O.P. has been appeared without any Vokalatnama and several time prayed for times for filing W.V. and Vokalatnama ; but after that the O.P. did not contest with the case and the case was heard exparte against the O.P.  So, all the documents and the complaint filed by the Complainant remains unchallenged and we had no other option but to hold that the

allegation made in the complaint are true.

It is clear from the above discussion that the O.P. issued the electric bill dated 13-07-2015 and dated 08-10-2015 on the basis of the erroneous reading of the defective meter and on several request of the Complainant did not replace the defective meter of his premises which is nothing but deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.

Point 3 & 4 are thus decided in favour of the Complainant.  Hence, the case stands.

 Proper fees have been paid

Hence, it is

                                                                           Ordered

That the C.C. No.125 of 2015 be and the same is allowed exparte against the O.P.

The O.P. is directed to change the defective electric meter of the premises of Complainant.

The O.P. is again directed to rectify the impugned electric bills dated 13-07-2015 and 08-10-2015 which were prepared on the basis of the reading taken from the defective meter and issued the fresh bills in place of above mentioned two bills.

The O.P. is further directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as litigation cost  to the Complainant.

All the above orders may comply within one-month form the date of this Order; failing which the Complainant shall be at liberty to execute this order as per the law and procedure.

Let a plain copy of this Judgement be supplied to the parties free of cost.