Judgment & Order dt. 11.07.2017
An electric bill slapping an excessive amount of Rs.63,147/- upon the complainant has caused the eye sore to the complainant and therefore, to get rid of it, the complainant has come up before this Forum by filing the instant complaint u/s 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986, against the electric department i.e. OPs. The quintessence of the complainant’s case may be described as follows.
The complainant is a cultivator by profession. She got the STW connection to her submersible pump from the OP-department for agricultural purpose since a long time back with consumer ID No.433169182 and meter No.H-147788. The bill was paid regularly by her in accordance with consumption recorded in the meter. Suddenly, the meter got stopped on 13.3.2013. OP-department was also informed on several times i.e. on 13.3.2013, 25.1.2015 and 20.1.2016 but the said department paid no heed to the grievance of the complainant; no step whatsoever was taken by them to change the defective meter. Rather, they started to send inflated bill demanding excessive amount from the complainant. Still, the complainant paid Rs.16,370/- voluntarily on 10.3.2015. The last bill was slapped on the complainant demanding Rs.63,147/-showing outstanding amount of Rs.62,952.04 in the period from Feb.2014 to Feb.2016. According to the complainant, the last bill of Rs.63,147/- has been drawn whimsically in order to harass her; it is nothing but figment of fertile imagination of the officer of the OP-department. Such act of OP-department is deficiency in service. She suffered huge loss of Rs.5 lakh as she could not grow crops on her land for want of irrigation over a period from 2013 to 2017. So, the complainant prays for passing an order directing the OP-department to change the defective meter, to pay Rs.5 lakh as compensation for loss, Rs.1 lakh as further compensation for mental pain and agony and Rs.50,000/- as litigation cost.
Both the OPs have filed a written version of their statements to contest herein. It has been submitted therein that the complainant is a consumer having STW connection from the department of OPs and the bills were also paid by her. On 24.2.2015, a bill of Rs.48,892/- was given to the complainant for consumption of February, 2014, and out of it she paid Rs.16,300/- only on 10.3.2015. The remaining amount of the said bill remains still outstanding for February, 2014. There is no illegality committed in drawing the aforesaid bill and therefore, the case should be dismissed in limini for want of cause of action of the complainant.
Upon the averments of both the parties the following issues are formulated for effective adjudication of the matter in disputes.
Issues:
- Whether the OPs are liable for deficiency in service for drawing disputed bill?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for?
Evidence of the parties
The complainant Rasmina Bibi has filed an affidavit-in-chief which is kept in the record. She has also been examined as PW-1. The documents filed on her behalf are marked as Ext. Nos.1-series, 2-series, and 3-series as detailed in the list of documents kept in the record. On the other hand, one set of “billing view of installation” has been filed on behalf of the OP-department to substantiate her claim and these documents are kept in the record for consideration.
DECISION WITH REASONS
Issue Nos. 1 & 2:
Ld. Lawyer appearing for the OPs has contended that the meter of the complainant was stopped since 13.3.2013, as goes version of the complainant; but the supply line was never disconnected and this being so, the complainant is liable for payment of electricity charge due to consumption since February, 2014 to January, 2016. For this period, the bill was sent to the complainant, mentioning outstanding amount of Rs.62,653.73 for the period from February, 2014 to January, 2016 and out of this amount, the complainant has paid only Rs.16,000/- to the OPs. The remaining amount has not been paid by the complainant and therefore, the said remaining outstanding amount has been mentioned in all subsequent bills served upon the complainant. The bill whereby outstanding amount of Rs.62,653.73 has been claimed, is correctly prepared in accordance with the provisions of Regulations and the complainant is bound to make payment of the said bill. Ld. Lawyer appearing for the complainant has submitted that the STW meter got stopped since 13.3.2013. Till today the defunct meter has not been changed by the OPs, although the complainant has informed them of the said fact from time to time i.e. on 13.3.2013, 27.1.2015 and 20.1.2016. This is the deficiency in service on the part of OPs. More to the point, as goes his submission, the disputed bill with billing dt. 8.11.2016 also mentions previous and present meter reading as 27100 units and those meter readings were taken on 19.8.2016 and 2.11.2016 respectively. On those dates, it is submitted, the meter was stopped and no reading can be obtained. But the disputed bill mentions meter reading as being 27100 units. The bill itself proves that it was prepared arbitrarily and whimsically and here lies deficiency in service on the part of OPs.
Considered the above submissions. Also considered the materials on record.
Now to see whether the disputed bill, billing dt. 8.11.2016, previous reading dt. 19.8.2016 and present reading date 2.11.2016 is arbitrarily and whimsically drawn on the face of it. It is undisputed fact that the meter of the complainant’s STW connection went stop since 13.3.2013 the date from which it is not displaying any meter reading. The previous bill of the said bill was drawn up on 16.5.2013 and its invoice No. is 410001046453. The current reading date of that bill is 3.5.2013 and its present meter reading is 13524 units. The invoice number of disputed bill is 408007728167. The present meter reading of disputed bill is 27100 units. It is not understandable to us how the meter reading of the disputed bill has been increased from 13524 to 27100, particularly when the meter is stopped since 13.3.2013. The present reading of 27100 as mentioned in the disputed bill clearly appears to be entered in the disputed bill whimsically and arbitrarily. Such reading does not have any basis and the OPs have not also been able to furnish any documents to establish how the figure of 27100 was mentioned in the disputed bill. In absence of any explanation in this regard from the OPs, much less any plausible explanation, we feel no hesitation to say that the disputed bill by which Rs.62,653.73 has been claimed by the OPs against the complainant is drawn whimsically and arbitrarily and as such the OPs are liable for causing deficiency in service. The OPs have claimed Rs.62,653.73 as outstanding amount from the complainant for the period from February, 2014 to January, 2016 and such charge is first made in the disputed bill dt. 8.11.2016. Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003 provides that no claim for electricity charge can be made after expiry of 2 years. The claim was first made by the OPs on 8.11.2016 vide the disputed bill having invoice No.408007728167. This being so and in view of legal provisions as referred to just above, the OPs cannot recover any claim from February, 2014 to October, 2014 from the complainant, as it is barred by limitation as pointed out u/s 56 (2) of the Electricity Act, 2003. They are only entitled to claim arrear charges from November, 2014 to January, 2016 and this can be charged on the basis of average consumption as pointed out in Regulations 3.6.1. But the disputed bill has not been prepared in accordance with the said Regulations; it has no foundation at all and the OPs have not been able to substantiate the foundation on which the disputed bill has been drawn. It is true that some computer generated documents/ papers have been produced on behalf of the OPs. But most of the bills submitted herein by the complainant finds no place in those computer generated documents of the OPs. So, we feel constrained to remark that those computer generated documents have been clumsily prepared and are not at all reliable documents. As the meter of the complainant is defunct and as the disputed bill is not prepared in accordance with the Regulations 3.6.1, it can be said very well that the OPs are liable for deficiency in service.
That there is the liability for deficiency in service on the part of the OPs can be well imagined from a distinct fact. Meter of the complainant has not been changed since 13.3.2013 till date by the OPs, although they have been written on several times, i.e. on 13.3.2013, 27.1.2015 and 20.1.2016 by the complainant. Regard being had to this particular fact we cannot but say that the OPs are guilty not only of deficiency in service but of gross deficiency in service towards the complainant.
Upon what have been discussed above, the complainant is found entitled to get compensation for loss suffered by her due to mental pain and agony and also litigation costs. She is not awarded compensation for loss in agriculture, but as the electric line was not disconnected. In the result, the case succeeds in part.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
that the complaint case be and the same is allowed on contest against the OPs with costs, which is quantified at Rs.2,000/-.
The disputed bill bearing invoice No.408007728167 and also another bill bearing invoice No.406008243484 prepared consequently thereafter are set aside. The OPs are directed to prepare a fresh bill for the period from November, 2014 to January, 2016 in accordance with Provisions of Regulations 3.6.1 and cause the same to be served upon the complainant within a month of this order after having adjusted Rs.16,370/-, which has been paid by the complainant on 10.3.2015, vide invoice No.408007728167. The OPs are at liberty to allow the complainant to make payment of the said bill in installments. The complainant will make payment of the said bill within date as directed by the OPs and the OPs will not cause disconnection of the electric line of the complainant, if payment of such bill is made accordingly by the complainant. Further, the OPs are also directed to supply a new meter to the complainant within the aforesaid period.
The OPs are also further directed to make payment of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for loss suffered by her due to mental pain and agony within a month of this order, failing which the compensation amount will bear interest @ 12% p.a. until the full realization thereof.
Let a plain copy of this order be furnished to the parties concerned forthwith free of cost.
