District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hooghly
PETITIONER
VS.
OPPOSITE PARTY
Complaint Case No.CC/65/2023
(Date of Filing:-17.04.2023)
- Sri Pratik Singh
East Sk. Para, near IBP, P.O. and P.S. Mogra, Hooghly, Pin- 712148.
Versus -
- The Station Manager, Mogra CCC, WBSEDCL,
At Baropukur Area, Amodghata, P.O. and P.S. Mogra,
District:- Hooghly, Pin-712148
- The Divisional Manager, WBSEDCL, at Kantapukur, Amodghata
P.O. and P.S. Mogra, District:- Hooghly, Pin:-712148
3. The RGRO, Hooghly RGRO Office, WBSEDCL
At Administrative Building, Ram Mandir, P.O. Chinsurah (RS)
P.S. Chinsurah, District:- Hooghly, Pin:-712102
…….Opposite Parties
Mr. Debasish Bandyopadhyay, President
Mr. Debasis Bhattacharya, Member
PRESENT:
Dtd. 23.10.2024
Final Order/Judgment
Debasis Bhattacharya:- Presiding Member
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the treatment extended by the opposite parties as mentioned above in the matter of redressal of grievances of the Complainant, related to an exorbitant power bill abruptly raised in respect of the period September 2021 to November 2021 by the Opposite Party No.1, the instant case has been filed by the complainant u/s 35(1) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
The fact of the case after trimming the unnecessary details is as follows.
Reportedly, the complainant, being a ‘day labour’ residing in an one room tiny house having only two electrical appliances i.e. one ceiling fan and one LED light, is the holder of Consumer ID no.501784952 of the OP i.e. WBSEDCL. The complainant claims, being a domestic consumer of electricity, that he used to receive quarterly power bills ranging from Rs.500/- to Rs. 600/- usually.
However, a power bill of Rs.36151.94/- was raised by the OP 1 in respect of the period September 2021 to November 2021 i.e. when the global pandemic Covid was on run, whereas it is claimed by the complainant that units consumed during that period can never go to such an extent which can result in such an astronomical bill amount, compared to the bills raised in the earlier periods.
Being awestruck, the Complainant communicated the entire developments to OP 1 by a letter dtd.01.09.2021 with a request to rectify the bill and to check the electric meter physically. On receipt of the same, reportedly within a few days the officials of Mogra Customer Care Centre visited the Complainant’s place and made an inspection.
Subsequent to that, OP 1 installed a challenge meter on 03.09.2021 for the purpose of technical verification and after eighteen days i.e. on 21.09.2021 it was detected that the consumption of units as shown by the challenge meter was in conformity with the reading of the original meter. Resultantly at that point of time no relief was provided to the Complainant by the OPs.
Consequent upon the above, the Complainant communicated the issue to OP 2 by a letter dtd. 23.09.2021.
As OP No.2 was unresponsive, the Complainant sent a further communication to OP 3 on 20.01.2022 seeking relief.
Accordingly, on receipt of the communication from the complainant, OP 3 i.e. the concerned RGRO of WBSEDCL arranged a hearing in presence of both the Complainant on one hand and OP 1 and OP 2 on the other.
Finally on 22.02.202, in course of hearing, the Complainant, on being asked, drafted a letter addressed to OP 3 and handed over the same to OP 3 ventilating his grievances.
However, allegedly in spite of assurances received from OP 3, there were no remedial measures taken by the OPs so far as the disputed electric bill was concerned.
However on 28.05.2022, the OPs took the step of disconnecting the electricity supply to the Complainant’s residence.
Considering the above as deficiency of service and unfair gesture on the OP’s part the Complainant approaches to this Commission for imposing direction upon the OP to issue a rectified bill on consideration of the consumption history of the Complainant, to restore the electricity connection, to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for causing mental agony and to pay Rs.25,000/- towards litigation cost.
The Complainant has annexed certain related documents viz. copies of communications addressed to the OPs, hearing notice received from OP 3, meter card of WBSEDCL, copy of the disputed electric bill and certain other electric bills pertaining to the earlier periods, at random.
Evidence on affidavit filed by the Complainant is almost replica of the Complaint petition.
On perusal of the complaint petition this Commission opines that so far as the definition of ‘Consumer’ as laid down in the Consumer Protection Act 2019 is concerned, the Complainant may be considered as a consumer.
The Complainant and OP 1 and 2 are resident/having their office address within the district of Hooghly and the claim preferred by the complainant does not exceed the amount of Rs.50,00,000/-. Thus this Commission has both territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to proceed in the instant matter.
The questions whether there was any deficiency of service on the opposite party’s part and whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief being analogous are taken together in the following part of this order.
Defense case
At the very outset it will be worth mentioning that the instant case runs ex parte against OP 2 and OP 3.
However OP 1 contested the case by filing written version and evidence on affidavit denying almost all the allegations leveled against them
OP in the first seven paragraphs of their written version highlights some routine charges such as ‘the case is not maintainable’, ‘the case is barred by limitation’, ‘the case is barred by law of estoppels, waiver and acquiescence’, ‘the case suffers from mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties’, ‘the petitioner has no cause of action against the present OP’ and the ‘petitioner has no locus standi to file the instant case’.
However the OP utterly failed to assign even a single reason for bringing such charges so far as the complaint petition is concerned.
Moreover OP 1 has not filed any non-maintainability petition separately so far as the complaint petition is concerned.
Hence this Commission does not find any reason to make any discussion over the charges leveled by OP 1 in their written version.
In the written version, the statements by the Complainant in his complaint petition are partly termed by the OP as matter of facts, records and documents and partly as false and fabricated.
However OP 1 admits the facts viz. the Complainant’s being a consumer, raising of the bill in dispute (bill dtd.27.08.2021, consumption period 31.05.2021 to 24.08.2021, bill period September 2021 to November 2021), lodging of the grievance by the Complainant consumer, installation of the challenge meter, hearing before the RGRO, issuance of draft settlement order by the RGRO on 07.03.2022 and final order on 29.03.2022 with advice for payment of outstanding dues.
OP 1 further admits that the supply line of the Complainant was disconnected on 22.06.2022 for non-payment of outstanding dues.
Finally it is claimed in the written version that there was no deficiency of service on the OP 1’s part.
In the E-chief, OP1 has reiterated the contents of their written version only. Along with the E-chief OP1 has annexed copies of the draft settlement order and the final order of the concerned RGRO i.e. OP 3.
On receipt of the copy of the E-chief of the OP1, the Complainant filed interrogatories and on a subsequent date OP 1 filed replies to the interrogatories. However as regards E-chief of the Complainant, OP 1 did not file interrogatories.
Decision with reasons
Materials on records are perused. In the instant case, the key documents which are supposed to decide the fate of the case are the ‘draft and final settlement orders’ passed by the RGRO and the replies of OP 1 to the interrogatories of the Complainant against the E-chief of OP 1.
The Complainant has claimed that he lives in a small one room house with no separate kitchen having insignificant electric appliances.
It is also apparent from the old power bills that bill amounts ranged from Rs.500/- to Rs.600/-.
The RGRO before passing the settlement orders did not feel it a necessity to arrange a spot enquiry to verify the Complainant’s claims regarding his residence and the electric appliances used by him.
Installation of a ‘challenge meter’ for eighteen days does not necessarily establishes that there was no incorrect meter reading or the device showing the meter reading was not faulty. OP 3 should have taken the past consumption of the consumer into consideration for taking a judicious decision.
OP 3 in the draft settlement order has mentioned that ‘the existing meter was found in absolutely good condition as per report’. But the said report has not been placed before this Commission.
Before drawing the final report the draft settlement order should have been served on the complainant for necessary rebuttal if any but no hard evidence in support of the said service could be produced by OP 1 before this Commission.
When the Complainant in his interrogatories asked for details of the past power bills, OP1 instead of furnishing the same offered some superficial replies. In fact the replies given by OP1 to the interrogatories of the Complainant in most cases are either desultory or circumvent.
In the first paragraph of page 4 of the BNA OP 1 has admitted that during lockdown period the meter reader could not take meter reading from any premises during the period from March 2021 to August 2021. But the glaring inconsistency is that the reading date of the disputed bill is 24.08.2021.
In view of the above, raising of the exorbitant bill without making a sincere meter reading cannot be ruled out
It has been already mentioned in this order that OP 1 failed also in the matter of production of a comparative statement of consumption of electricity by the Complainant consumer.
In view of the aforementioned, this Commission is of the view that the power bill for the material period was generated without taking proper reading of the meter and in an abrupt and whimsical manner. The Complainant is not supposed to suffer for this lackadaisical attitude of the OP WBSEDCL. Deficiency of service on the OP WBSEDCL’s part is conspicuous.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
that the complaint case bearing no.65/2023 be and the same is partly allowed on contest. The Commission hereby directs the Opposite parties 1 and 2 to take steps to generate power bill afresh as soon as possible, preferably within 30 days from the date of this order, in respect of the period September 2021 to November 2021 strictly on consideration of the average monthly consumption of units by the Complainant in last three years/since installation of the meter, prior to the billing period starting from September 2021.
The Opposite Parties 1 and 2 in general i.e. WBSEDCL are hereby directed to restore electricity connection as soon as the fresh electricity bill is paid by the Complainant consumer.
The Commission further directs the OP to pay Rs.20,000/- to the Complainant as compensation for causing mental pain and agony and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation cost.
The OP will be liable to comply with the order related to payment of compensation and litigation cost within 45 days from the date of this order.
In the event of failure to comply with this order, the opposite party will pay a cost of Rs.20,000/- by depositing the same in the Consumer Legal Aid Account.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/authorized advocates on record by hand against proper acknowledgement/sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.
The final order will be available in the respective website i.e. www.confonet.nic.in.
