Fact of the case of the Complainant in short is that the Complainant is the Consumer under the O.P. WBSEDCL having Consumer No.B 314424 and Service Connection No.LM 11116 / DOM.

This Complainant was paying electric bill regularly according to meter reading.  On 18-01-2012 this Complainant noticed that electric meter of his service connection was running fast.  As such he applied to the O.P. Station Manager for replacement of the said electric meter on 19-01-2012.

On 03-02-2012 said electric meter was replaced by a new meter by the O.P. in his service connection.

After long back this Complainant received three (3) bills showing consumption of 1204 units vide bill dated 22-11-2012 and he also received another bill showing consumption of 1303 units vide bill dated 08-10-2012.  Thereafter, this Complainant approached the O.P. / Station Manager for correction of the said bill ; but O.P. Station Manager did not correct the said bills and issued notices for disconnection dated 25-02-2013 and dated 28-06-2013 demanding Rs.1181/-  for February – 2013, Rs.1944/- for May – 2013 and Rs.104/- for June – 2013.

It has also been further stated in the petition of complaint that this Complainant has not received any electric bill for the period from February – 2013 to April – 2013.  So, this Complainant has filed this case and prays for declaration that the electric bill for the period

May-2012 to January-2014 are excessive, fictitious, etc. and also made further prayer to make direction upon O.P. to refund the excess amount paid by this Complainant and also made further prayer for declaration that the disconnection notices dated 09-01-2014 is illegal, wrong and whimsical and also made prayer to make direction upon O.P. to issue fresh bill for May-2012 to January-2014 and  prays for other reliefs.

This case is being contested by the O.P. by filing W.V. denying all allegations as made in the petition of complaint contending inter alia that the complaint is not maintainable and case of the Complainant is vague.

The specific case of the O.P. in short is that the bills given by the O.P. to the Complainant  for the disputed period  were prepared according to actual meter reading.  So, Complainant is bound to pay the said amount of the bill which he has consumed.  So, this complaint is liable to be dismissed.

                                                                 Points for Determination.

1)  Is the case maintainable ?

2) Whether the Complainant is entitled to relief as prayed for.

3)  Whether there was any deficiency in service as alleged by the Complainant.

4)  Whether the impugned electric bills are excessive, inflated as alleged by Complainant.

                                                                     Decision with reasons.

In this case Ld. Advocate for the Complainant argued inter alia that this Complainant received inflated bills for the period May-2012 to January-2014.  So, he made application to the O.P. to prepare corrected bill according to his actual consumption ; but O.P. did not correct the same and sent notice for dis-connection. 

So, the bills involved in this case are inflated and excessive.  So, he prays for relief has prayed in the petition of complaint.

On the other hand, written argument has been filed on behalf of the O.P. 

Perused the same.                  

The written argument submitted by the O.P. is the replica of his W.V. and the fact as stated in the W.V. has been reiterated in the written argument.

Heard.  Perused the petition of complaint and the W.V. and the copy of documents annexed

in this case and the written argument of O.P.  It appears that this Complainant has challenged the electric bills for the period from May-2012 to January-2014 as well as dis-connection notice dated 09-01-2014.

On perusal of the materials on record it appears that this Complainant has filed electric bills for the month of November-2012 to January-2013 and May-2013 to January- 2014.  No electric bills for the disputed period May-2012 to October-2012 and February-2013 to April-2013 have been filed ; but it has been stated in the petition of complaint that this Complainant has not received any electric bill for the period February-2013 to April-2013 ; but on perusal of the case record we find that no electric bill for the period May-2012 to October-2012 and February-2013 to April-2013 have been filed.  No cogent reason have been given for non-filing of the said documents though said electric bills are very vital evidence in this case.  Complainant could have filed application to the O.P. for supply / issuance of the said electric bills to him.  He also could filed application before this Forum for calling for the said bills for the said period from the Office of the O.P. ; but he did not do the same.  So, it is beyond our knowledge how Complainant has claimed / challenged the entire period of disputed bills without perusing / inspecting / examining the impugned electric bills for the disputed period i.e. that the May-2012 to October-2012, February-2013 to April-2013 are inflated / excessive.  So, we hold that the allegation about disputed bill is made only on the basis of mere conjecture.  So, allegations about disputed bills are without any basis.

 So, we also find that this Complainant has withheld the vital evidence and without perusing the contents of said electric bills, it is not possible for this Forum to come to conclusion that the bills for the said period from May-2012 to October-2012 and February-2013 to April-2013 are inflated, excessive, etc.

On perusal of the electric bills for the disputed period available in the case record i.e. annexure – G,H,J and L, we find that the said bills were prepared by incorporating previous meter reading and present meter reading and in that bills O.P. also demanded outstanding dues.

It is undisputed that the electric meter installed in the Complainant’s service connection is in order and is making correct recording and there is no allegation about the recording of consumption of electricity in case meter.

Complainant has nowhere stated in his petition of complaint that the meter was mal-

functioning and was not recording actual consumption during the disputed period of case bills.

Moreover, defective meter was replaced by a new meter on 03-02-2012.

It has observed by the Hon’ble State Commission of Uttarakhand reported in 2017 (1) CPR page 53 (UTT) inter alia that Consumer Protection Act, 1986  Section 15 and 17 – Electricity Act, 2003 – Section 142 (5) – Electricity – Defective Meter – Despite installation of the check meter at the premises of Respondent,  Respondent has filed Consumer Complaint – Complaint is pre-mature and no cause of action has arisen in favour of respondent – Complaint against appellants – District Forum has not properly considered facts and circumstances of the case and has erred in allowing consumer complaint per impugned order which cannot legally be sustained and is liable to be set aside and Consumer Complaint is liable to be dismissed.

In the present case it is admitted by the Complainant that a new meter was installed / replaced by removing old defective meter on 03-02-2012 after that this Complainant has filed this case / Complaint has challenged electric bill on and from May-2012 to January-2014, despite correct recording of consumption of electricity.

So, in view of above observation by the Hon’ble State Commission, we hold that this Complaint is liable to be dismissed.

In this case this Complainant has also challenged the dis-connection notice dated 09-01-2014 annexure – ‘O’.  It reveals from annexure – O that this O.P. has given this notice stating amount of Rs.116/- bill period January-2014 and outstanding November-2013 to December-2013 Rs.4191 in total Rs.4307/-.

We have already held that all bills during disputed have been prepared / Assessed according to meter recording and Complainant could not be able to prove that said assessment of said bills as mentioned in disconnection notice is illegal & not justified.

No cogent evidence has been adduced by Complainant in support of the claim of the Complainant about claim of amounts for consumption of electricity as mentioned in notice.

Moreover, we hold that Complainant could not be able to prove that claim of O.Ps. in impugned bills are excessive, inflated and illegal and not justified etc. as alleged by Complainant. 

It has been observed by the Hon’ble National Commission reported in 2016 (3) CPR page 427 (NC) that C.P. Act, 1986 – Section 15, 17, 19, 21 – Electricity – Tube well connection – Demand Notice – Complaint dismissed by Forum below – Mere pleading without evidentiary support holds no value – Petitioner had failed to prove that demand of O.P. was illegal and not justified – State Commission and District Forum have rightly dismissed the complaint of petitioner.

In the present case neither any oral evidence nor any cogent documentary evidence have been adduced by the Complainant to prove that the demand made by the Complainant during the disputed period are illegal and not justified.

Moreover, we hold from the electric bills filed by Complainant during the disputed period were prepared according to meter reading / recording. Moreover, this complaint has also paid some of the amounts of the impugned bill during the disputed period vide bill dated 22-04-2012 and 08-10-2012.

So, we find that this Complainant is also estopped from challenging case disputed period bills.

So, in view of the above facts & circumstances we hold that Complainant has not been able to prove his claim / demand of the electric charge of the O.P. during the disputed period and the notice dated 09-01-2014 are illegal and not justified.

In view of the facts & circumstances discussions made above we hold that this complainant has not been able to prove his case.

Accordingly, this complaint is liable to be dismissed.

Hence, it is

                                                                            Ordered

That the Complaint Case No.66 of 2014 be and same is hereby DISMISSED ON CONTEST ;BUT WITHOUT COST.

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