West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/176/2012

Mrs. Philomena Anna Haves - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Station Manager, Group Electric Supply, W.B.S.E.D.C.L - Opp.Party(s)

09 Apr 2013

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

 Complaint case No.176/2012                                                         Date of disposal: 09/04/2013                               

 BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT :  Mr. K. S. Samajder.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mrs. Debi Sengupta.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mr. Kapot Chattopadhyay.

    For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff : Mr. T. K. Roy. Advocate.

    For the Defendant/O.P.S.                           : Mr. S. K. Bhattacharya.  Advocate.

          

                 Mrs. Philomena Anna Haves W/O-Mr.Raymonal Michel Haves resident of Rita Villa,

                 Jhuli, P.O.-Hijli, P.S.-Kharagpur(T), Dist-Paschim Medinipur …………Complainant.

                                                              Vs.

         1) The Station Manager, Group Electric Supply,  W.B.S.E.D.C.L., Inda, Kharagpur, P.S.-

              Kharagpur, Dist-Paschim Medinipur

   2) The Chairman, Bidyut Bhaban, Block-D-1, Sector-II,Salt Lake City, Kolkata-

       700091………Ops.

The present case has been filed by the complainant alleging defect in the bill dated 21/08/2012 in respect of her domestic service connection No.138/Consumer No.A-290660. The complainant alleged that by the said bill a sum of Rs.24,548/-(twenty four thousand five hundred forty eight) has been claimed which is absurd, whimsical and without any basis. So the complainant prayed for necessary correction of the bill and also for some other relief’s.

The Ops. contested the case by filing the written objection denying the matter averments  in the petition on complaint.

The Ops. admitted that the complainant is a consumer under them. The specific case of the Ops. is that the bill has been prepared on the basis of the reading noted in the yellow card which was subsequently changed on 07/08/2012 when the previous meter reading was 7144. Op. contented that such reading was not noted in the yellow card through mistake. The bill was prepared as per actual consumption and there was nothing wrong in the bill. So the Ops. prayed for dismissal of the case.

It is now for our consideration as to whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as claimed.

Contd…………..P/2

 

- ( 2 ) -

Decisions with reasons

 Admitted position is that the complainant is a consumer under the Ops. It is also admitted that the complainant has domestic electric connection. The bill for the consumption period May 2012 to July 2012 for Rs.24,548/-(twenty four thousand five hundred forty eight) is under dispute in this case. The date of billing is 21/08/2012 and the total units have been shown as 3082 upon which the bill has been claimed. It appears that on 07/08/2012 a new meter card was given to the complainant replacing the old one. On the date of replacement the initial reading was shown as ‘0’. Reading of the meter was first recorded in the new meter card on 15/08/2012 and the total units consumed has been recorded in this card as 39. The entry in the previous meter card shows that the last reading was taken on 05/08/2012 and the units concerned has been shown as 708. The disputed period is the consumption period from May 2012 to July 2012. We find the reading date in the disputed bill is shown on 15/08/2012. Till that date, for the aforesaid period, we find that total unit of 708 + 39 =749 has been consumed by the complaint as per entry in the new meter card as well as the old meter card.

The Ops. in their W.O. stated of certain circumstances for improper noting in the meter card. They also filed a statement to justify their claim as per the disputed bill. But in our considered view the Ops. can not take advantage of their own wrong. As per the written objection filed by the Ops. sometimes the Ops. men did not get access to the meter and sometime the entry in the meter card was made on the basis of party’s reporting. If we believe such statements still we must hold that we can not go beyond the recording as noted in the meter card. We have already found that for the period from May 2012 to July 2012 a total unit of 747 was consumed by the petition complainant and as such the bill should have been prepared on that basis. 

                Hence, it is,

                                    Ordered,

                                                    that the case succeeds on contest the Ops. are hereby directed to rectify the bill of the complainant relating to her domestic service connection No.138/Consumer No.A-290660 for the period from May, 2012 to July,2012. Such bill is to be prepared taking into account the total unit consumed by the complainant as 747. Upon such preparation of the bill by the Ops. and its receipt by the complainant the complainant shall pay the bill within the date specified in the bill.

Having regard to the facts and circumstance to this case, we do not think it just and proper to make any order as to cost.

Dic. & Corrected by me

              

         President                                Member              Member                                  President

                                                                                                                              District Forum

                                                                                                                          Paschim Medinipur