DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 0144
C.C. CASE NO. _10_ OF ___2016_
DATE OF FILING : 3.2.2016 DATE OF PASSINGJUDGEMENT:23.08.2017
Present : President : Udayan Mukhopadhyay
Member(s) : Subrata Sarker
COMPLAINANT : Mrs. Shabari Mondal (Gayen), R.K. Pally, Sonarpur, Behind U.B.I, Kolkata – 150. P.O R.K Mission Pally.
-VERSUS -
O.P/O.Ps : The Station Manager, WBSEDCL, Sonarpur Customer Care Centre, Ghsiara, South 24-Parganas, Kolkata – 150, P.O + P.S Sonarpur.
_______________________________________________________________________
J U D G E M E N T
Sri Subrata Sarker, Member
This is an application under section 12 of the C.P Act, 1986 filed by the complainant on the ground that an abnormal high electricity bill has been raised against Consumer ID no.100092260 amounting to Rs.40,447.67 for the period 10/2015 to 12/2015, which is obviously an absurd amount as she belongs to the domestic category.
The case of the complainant is that all the previous bills were paid in time and last bill was paid in September, 2015. During inspection it was found that the meter was found defective and was showing incorrect reading for which it was finally replaced on 2.12.2015. But the absurd bill was made and delivered much before replacement of the meter. Complainant also sent an application to the O.P on 14.10.2015 for justification but the person concerned was unable to take any major action and delayed the process and the absurd bill remained unchanged. It is also the case of the complainant that after replacement of the meter the recent bill for the period January 2016 to March, 2016 amounting to Rs.7384/- is also quite high considering the winter season. Inspite of several requests the O.P failed and neglected to rectify the bill . Hence, this praying for direction not to cut the electricity supply of the complainant and other reliefs.
The O.P contested the case by filing written version and denied all the allegations made in the petition of complaint. The case of the O.P is that complainant enhanced its connected load from .68 KVA to 3.15 KVA on 10.7.2015 and that at the time of meter reading on 2.10.2015 Meter No.T1094921 shows no display and the meter seems defective for which bill for the month of July 2015 to September, 2015 was prepared on enhanced load and in compliance of the Rule 3.6.1 of the Regulation. The O.P denied that the bill was absurd . The O.P also submitted that consumer was intimated vide Memo no.SCCC/24/1896 dated 4.2.2016 that bill for October, 2015 to December, 2015 has been generated as per ERC guideline and hence there is no scope for modification. O.P prays for rejection of the instant complaint case with exemplary cost.
Points for decision
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P or not.
- Whether the complainant is eligible to get relief as prayed for partly or fully.
Decision with reasons
It is seen from the Meter Card that the Meter reading has been recorded till 8.4.2015 showing 7464 units. It is the contention of the complainant that no meter reading has been done after 8.4.2015 on the plea of the Meter reader agent of the O.P that the meter is defective as no further consumption of electricity in unit after 7464 has been reflected. The said defective meter has been replaced by a new one being Meter no.B3336660 on 2.12.015 and there is no denial of enhancement of load on the part of the complainant.
Having gone through the Meter Card and the Bill in dispute , it is seen that the Bill in dispute is showing previous reading 8189 units on 9.7.2015 and 12742 units on reading date 2.10.2015 which is manufactured and mechanically and arbitrarily prepared, when such meter reading has not been reflected in the Meter Card and even then there is no satisfactory explanation how the meter reading 8189 units have been shown, when there is no such entry in the Meter Card after 8.4.2015 ,which is the last date of record of units 7464 and the meter being defective.
The Bill in dispute undoubtedly has been generated out of the defective meter T1094921 and mere enhancement of load can not ratify the O.P to generate a bill prepared mechanically and arbitrarily and the complainant has to pay that amount. The bill generated out of the defective meter is always defective and incorrect. It would be gross injustice to direct the complainant to pay Rs.40,447/-, the bill amount in dispute. The practice adopted by the O.P threatening for disconnection of electricity as alleged by the complainant with the bill arbitrarily prepared amounts to unfair trade practice and wrongful gain by the O.P. Such act for wrongful gain certainly renders mental agony and harassment to the complainant. Inspite of all that, complainant has been paying bill generated out of the replaced meter no. B3336660 without any grievance.
Hence,
Ordered
That the complaint case is allowed on contest against the O.P.
The O.P is directed to serve a revised bill for the period in dispute considering average units on the payment of bill during the year 2016 within 30 days and the complainant shall have to pay the said amount within 7 days from the date of service of the revised bill .
If the revised bill is not served within 30 from the date of this order , then the O.P shall have to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- and cost of Rs.5000/- to the complainant .
It may be mentioned here that if the O.P failed to comply the above order then the complainant is at liberty to execute the order through this Forum.
Let a plain copy of this order be served upon the complainant free of cost and one copy be sent to the O.P through speed post.
Member President
Dictated and corrected by me
Member
The judgment in separate sheet is ready and is delivered in open Forum. As it is ,
Ordered
That the complaint case is allowed on contest against the O.P.
The O.P is directed to serve a revised bill for the period in dispute considering average units on the payment of bill during the year 2016 within 30 days and the complainant shall have to pay the said amount within 7 days from the date of service of the revised bill .
If the revised bill is not served within 30 from the date of this order , then the O.P shall have to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- and cost of Rs.5000/- to the complainant .
It may be mentioned here that if the O.P failed to comply the above order then the complainant is at liberty to execute the order through this Forum.
Let a plain copy of this order be served upon the complainant free of cost and one copy be sent to the O.P through speed post.
Member President
