Debasis Bhattacharya:- Presiding Member

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with thetreatment extended by the opposite party 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 October 2020 to December 2020 by the Opposite Party, 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.

The complainant, being a septuagenarian lady, is the holder of Consumer ID no.101581886 of the OP i.e.WBSEDCL since 2014. She claims being a domestic consumer of electricity since installation of the electric meter, she has been paying power bill regularly and there was no dispute till the lock down imposed in the country in view of the global pandemic.

However, a power bill of Rs.42,731/- was raised by the OP in respect of the period October 20 to December 20 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. The Complainant indicates at three possibilities behind such an exorbitant bill. Firstly there was no reading of the meter prior to generation of the bill because of the lock down. Secondly either there was an erroneous reading or the meter itself was defective.

Allegedly, in spite of repeated persuasion and legal notice, no rectified bill was issued and the OP preferred to keep mum over the issue. On the other hand the Complainant was asked to pay the bill and was warned of disconnection in case of non-payment of the bill.

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 change the defective meter, to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- for causing mental agony and to pay Rs.15,000/- towards litigation cost.

The Complainant has annexed certain related documents viz. copies of quotation issued by WBSEDCL against the application of the Complainant for fresh connection, copy of the disputed electric bill, communications made with the OP in this regard, lawyer’s notice and lots of electric bills pertaining to the earlier periods, at random.

On perusal of the complaint petition the 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 the sole OP 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.

The OP contested the case by filingwritten version and evidence on affidavit denying 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.

However the OP after admitting the facts that the Complainant consumer was regular in the matter of payments of electric bills and meter reading could not be taken during the lock down period,alleges in their written version that the consumer had several electrical appliances viz. five electric fans, four tube lights, nine LED lamps, two geysers, one 1 HP pump and one kitchen chimney.

However no authentic spot enquiry report in support of the allegation made by the OP could be filed. In this regard the OP did not seek any Commission either.

Besides, whatever be the actual number of electric appliances enjoyed by the Complainant during the material period, it could no way be established by the OP that prior to the disputed bill period, the Complainant consumer was not in possession of that number of electrical appliances.

The OP further states that on receipt of the Complainant’s application for regeneration of the bill a spot enquiry at the consumer’s premises was made by a technical expert on 04.08.2020 and reportedly no discrepancy in the meter was found. However to further ascertain the absence of any defect in the meter a ‘challenge meter’ was installed on 15.09.2020 but on 26.10.2020 it was found that the existing meter and the challenge meter were showing the same consumption. From this, the OP draws the inference that the allegation of defective meter made by the Complainant is false and baseless.

But in the preceding portion of the written version itself the OP admitted that no meter reading could be taken in respect of the disputed period.

In the evidence on affidavit also, the OP admits in the second paragraph that during the lock down period the meter reading could not be taken regularly.

Decision with reasons:-Certain issues which are apparent from the complaint petition as well as from the written version of the OP that the Complainant was regular in the matter of payment of periodical electric bills and meter reading could not be taken in respect of the material period due to lock down.

Now for the sake of transparency and proper adjudication of the case and on the basis of an application filed by the Complainant, the OP was asked by virtue of the Commission’s order dtd.14.11.22 to furnish written information on the consumption history of the consumer since 2014 i.e. the year of installation of the meter.

However on 10.01.23 Ld. Counsel for the OP admitted that the OP was not in a position to furnish the said information in compliance of the order dtd. 14.11.22

On the contrary, the Complainant has filed quite a few electric bills pertaining to the earlier periods from which it transpires that the monthly bill amount ranges more or less from Rs.1500/- to Rs.2000/-.

Installation of challenge meter and spot enquiry of the technical expert do not necessarily establish that the electric bill for the material period was raised by the OP in fair and judicious manner.

The OP 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.

Hence, it is

ORDERED

that the complaint case bearing no.08/2021 be and the same is partly allowed on contest.

The Commission hereby directs the opposite party to take steps to raise power bill afresh in respect of the period October 2020 to December 2020 strictly on consideration of the average monthly consumption of units by the Complainant in last three years prior to October 2020.

The Commission further directs the opposite party to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental pain and agony and Rs.5000/-  towards litigation cost.

The opposite party will be liable to complywith this orderwithin 45 days of the date of this order. In the event of failure to comply with this order the opposite party will pay cost of Rs.10,000/- 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 or their authorized Advocates/Agents on record, by hand against proper acknowledgement or sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.

The Final Order will be available in the following website www.confonet.nic.in.