Hon'ble Mr. Subhas Ch. Guin, Member.
The Complainant, Mr. Prosanta Saha filed this instant case which deals with bill dispute of his domestic connection of the West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (OP). The facts of this case in a nut shell is that Mr. Saha received an inflated bill for the month of September,2017 to November, 2017 amounting to Rs.3635/-. Then he went to the Office of the OP and discussed about the inflated bill and paid the same after adjusting the excess unit by the OP.
Thereafter he again received another inflated bill for the months of December,2017 to February, 2018 amounting to Rs.12,788/- on 24.11.17 with a consumption of 1474 units which appeared to be a big jump to him with respect to meter reading. So he went to the O.P’s Office to make sure whether the meter was defective or not. Then staff of OP came to the house of the Complainant and after checking the meter they declared the meter defective. On 30.11.17 Complainant submitted an application to the OP stating his grievance regarding inflated bill and thereafter he sent a legal notice through his Advocate on 27.03.18 for redressal of his grievances which the OP received on 30.03.18 but the OP remained silent after receiving the same notice. Finding no other alternative he filed this instant case before this Commission for redressal of his grievances. He prayed for a direction to the OP not to disconnect his electricity connection and issued rectified bills on the basis of actual consumption. He also prayed for a direction to the OP to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- for deficiency in service, Rs.15,000/- for mental pain, agony and harassment and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of proceeding.
Summon was served upon the OP and Op contested the case by filing written version, evidence on affidavit and written argument. In the written argument, OP stated that meter reading on 25.08.16 and 27.11.16 was 7172 respectively 6996 which indicates the malfunctioning of the meter for which Complainant was charged for Rs.5209/- with unit consumed zero out of which Rs.5079/- was for outstanding bill and only Rs.132/- was for the bill of quarter December, 2016 to February, 2017.
OP also argued that similar was the case for the next quarterly bill (i.e. March, 2017 to May, 2017) wherein only minimum charges and LPSC of Rs.178.25 was claimed. But for the next quarter meter was showing a reading 7254 which consumed 82 units for which Complainant was charged Rs.415/- for the said quarter (I.e. June, 2017 to August, 2017). Complainant paid the abovesaid bills without raising any objection. Again for the quarter September, 2017 to November, 2017 which was also disputed wherein meter reading was 7855 on 28.08.17 consuming 601 units for which Rs.3635/- was charged from the Complainant in which he paid Rs.1500/- out of that bill without raising any objection on 23.09.17. For the second disputed bill for the quarter December, 2017 to February, 2018 meter reading was 9003 on 24.11.17 for which Rs.12,788/- was charged from the Complainant wherein extra 326 units were charged by mistake which was admitted by the OP. On receipt of this bill Complainant filed written complaint before OP on 30.11.17. Again for the quarter March, 2018 to May, 2018 only 32 units were consumed for which Rs. 13,240/- was charged from the Complainant vide bill dated 23.02.18 out of which Rs.13,054/- was outstanding bill.
Ld. Advocate for the Op also defended that the meter of the Complainant became sticky for which it was showing erroneous reading which caused the Complainant gainer as he paid less amount of money than the actual consuming more energy. He also argued that for the sticky period he paid bill for consuming zero unit and as per guide line of West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission. So he raised no objection for the abovesaid period and at the same time he paid the quarterly bill last time on 23.09.17. After 23.09.17 Complainant did not pay single farthing towards electric bill to the OP Company and at same time he enjoyed the facility without paying bills for the same. Ld. Advocate for the OP further argued that they did not send any letter of disconnection nor did they disconnect the line as per provision of the Law.
Ld. Advocate for the OP also mentioned in his written argument that after checking the meter they replaced the same with new one on 06.10.2018. In this way Ld. Advocate for the OP controverted the allegations brought against him by the Complainant and cited a case law relating to bill dispute of WBSEDCL.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATIONS
- Whether the Complainant is a consumer of the OP Company?
- Whether the outstanding bill is inflated, arbitrary and unjustified?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OP?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief?
- What other relief the Complainant is entitled?
Point No.1.
Complainant Mr. Prosanta Saha had a domestic electric connection of the Op Company since 2009 having consumer serial No.C03474, Consumer category: C03474 and consumer Id No.424112710 and was paying the electric bill as per meter reading since then. So the Complainant is a consumer under the section 2(d) of the CP Act, 1986.
Point No.2.
To adjudge whether the electric bills are inflated we can take the recourse of one instrument here namely the meter reading card(Annexure-A & A/1 of the complaint petition). Here prior to disputed period where meter was showing erroneous reading the quarterly unit consumed by the consumer for six consecutive months ranges from 110 units to 336 units. But during the disputed period(25.08.16 to 05.10.18) one quarterly bill was paid by the Complainant where 82 units were shown to be consumed and one quarterly bill was not paid by the Complainant although units consumed for the said quarter was 32 units which is much less than the range shown above from the meter reading card. So the question of inflated bill does not arise in as much as the meter was sticky which was later declared defective by the OP Company.
Again for in depth analysis of the point No.2 we can take the recourse of another instruments which are bills for different quarter annexed by Complainant and OP in the case record.
From the case record it is found that Complainant had two disputed bills one for the quarter September, 2017 to November, 2017(Annexure-B of complaint petition) in which 601 unit were consumed by the Complainant and he was charged for Rs.3635/- for the same. But he paid Rs.1500/- only after adjusting the excess unit by the OP towards payment of the said quarter without raising objection on 23.09.17. Again for the second disputed bill for the quarter December, 2017 to February, 2018 Rs.12,788/-(Annexure-B/1 of complaint petition) was charged from the Complainant wherein extra 326 units were charged by mistake which was admitted by the OP. On receipt of this bill he filed written complaint before the Op on 30.11.17. On the other hand he did not pay single penny towards payment of the said quarter.
From the argument of the OP it is evident that bills for three quarter (December, 2016 to February, 2017 Annexure-2,3, & 4 of OP) prior to the disputed bills (i.e. March, 2017 to May, 2017 & June, 2017 to August, 2017) where minimum charges and LPSC wherever applicable were charged from the Complainant due to sticky meter and he paid those bills without raising any objection. Again after the disputed bills for the quarter March, 2018 to May, 2018 where only 32 units were consumed for which Rs.13,240/- was charged from the Complainant out of which Rs.13,054/- was outstanding bill. This bill was not paid by the Complainant also.
Hence, it is clear that Complainant paid the bills where minimum charges were levied by the OP as per provision of WBERC and did not pay the bills where there was a huge amount which appeared to be inflated due to inclusion of outstanding bill.
As a result Complainant became defaulter. So the bills raised by the OP were not inflated, arbitrary and unjustified.
Thus the point No.2 is decided against the Complainant.
Point No.3.
During the disputed period from 25.08.16 to 05.10.18 Complainant’s meter became sticky for which it was showing erroneous reading. The meter was declared to be defective by the OP later. In the said period minimum charges and LPSC if applicable were levied by the OP.
So he raised no objection for the abovesaid period and at the same time he paid quarterly bill last time on 23.09.17 but he was enjoying the facility without paying single farthing for the same after 23.09.17.
On the other hand OP did not send any letter for disconnection for non-payment of bills nor did he disconnect his electric line for the same. Thereafter OP Company replaced the defective meter with new one on 06.10.18. So the Commission comes to the conclusion that there in no deficiency in service on the part of the OP Company.
Therefore this point No.3 is decided against the Complainant.
Point No.4 & 5.
Previously we are of opinion that bills were not inflated, arbitrary and unjustified. These two points are corollary to the aforesaid point No.2. The OP Company acted lawfully abiding by the rules of West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission. As such the complaint is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for. In the result both the points- 4 & 5 are answered in negative and are decided against the Complainant.
Consequently, the case of the Complainant fails on contest.
Hence, it is
Ordered
That the complaint Case No. CC/37/2018 be and the same is dismissed on contest without cost.
Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied to the concerned party by hand/by Registered Post with A/D forthwith, free of cost, for information & necessary action as per rule.
The copy of the Final Order be also available in the official website: www.confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me.
