Date of Filing: 04-05-2015 Date of Final Order: 11-11-2016
Sri Debangshu Bhattacharjee, Member.
The brief facts of the complaint as culled out from the record is that the Complainant, Nepal Ch. Banik, S/o. Lt. Bhabataran Banik of the O.Ps being consumer ID No.424169017 of domestic connection having service connection No.19320 & Meter No. L047124 and enjoying the electricity in his house with his family through the O.Ps.
It is most important fact in the present case that the meter of the Complainant has been out of order (Meter stop) since the year 2012.
On 24/08/2013 the Complainant lodge a written complaint before the O.P. No.1, The Station Manager, W.B.S.E.D.C.L., Mathabhanga Sector regarding the matter of meter stop and sending vague/imaginary/ wrongful electric consumption Bills. But the O.P. No.1 not yet sent any reply and did not take any steps for repairing or changing the defective meter. The Complainant has been paying all the consumption charges according to the Bills sent by the O.P No.1 till now and there was no pending Bill on behalf of the Complainant.
It is the case of the Complainant that from the Bill dated 07/02/2014 for the month of February, March & April, 2014, Bill dated 04/07/2014 for the month of May, June & July 2014, Bill dated 19/08/2014 for the months of August, September & October, 2014 and Bill dated 19/11/2014 for the month of November, December 2014 and January 2015 which are sent by the O.Ps, it appears that the said Bills were not prepared according to the consumption charges and the Bills were prepared in a fictitious and imaginary manner and does not tally with the meter reading card vide Sl. No.599913. From the meter reading card it appears that meter has been stop since 18/10/2012 to 02/11/2014 but actually the meter of the Complainant is till now in a stop Position and defective. From the Bill dated 07/02/2014 it appears that an average consumption of 670 has been show in the bill and the same has been paid by the Complainant though the consumption unit shown is not correct and has been prepared imagingly from the bill it reflect that present reading date and previous reading date are respectively 24/10/2013 & 24/01/2014 which does not tally with the meter reading card. From the Bill dated 04/07/2014 it appears that the consumption charges has been claimed for 0.00 unit which is not at all correct. From the Bill dated 19/08/204 it appears that the meter is running and consumption charge has been claim for 714 Units in which it transpire that the present reading and previous reading dates are 17/04/2014 & 18/07/2014 but from the meter reading card it appears that the meter stop up to 02/11/2014. Thus, the consumption unit, meter reading and meter reading card are all fictitious and the Bill has been prepared in a haphazard manner and imaginary manner. From the Bill dated 19/11/2014 it appears that the meter is running and consumption charge of 748 unit has been claimed which does not tally with the meter card used in respect of the customer which has been duly signed by the O.P. No.1. From the previous bills it appears that the customer is consuming more or less 450 units in three month but from the bills sent by the O.P. No.1 during the meter stop condition is consuming much excess units then the previous bill.
It is the further case of the Complainant that the O.P. No.1 sending the said bills in the name of the Complainant not in average way but in imaginary way causing a great loss and financial hardship to the Complainant, when the meter was in totally stop condition. The Complainant has only 5 members in his family and is consuming normally 400 units for three months but in meter stop condition, the O.Ps are sending Bill so for different units more than 400 units in lieu of average bills.
The O.Ps till date did not take any step regarding repairing the defective meter or replace the said meter with new one in the house of the Complainant inspite receiving of written complaint of defective meter lodged by the Complainant for which the Complainant suffered from mental pain & agony and facing much inconvenience by such activities from the part of the O.Ps and also there was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice adopting by the O.Ps.
Hence, the Complainant filed the present case praying for issuing a direction upon the O.Ps (i) for a declaration that the Bills sent to the Complainant in meter stop condition are illegal, wrong/void, (ii) to refund/adjust excess amount of consumption charges taken from the Complainant in meter stop condition, (iii) to installed a new meter in place of the defective meter at once in the house of the Complainant and also to pay (iv) Rs.30,000/- as compensation for mental pain, agony for wrongful act and deficiency in service of the O.Ps and (iii) Rs.10,000/- towards litigation costs, besides other relief(s) as the Forum deem fit, as per law & equity.
The O.P. No.1, The Station Manager, W.B.S.E.D.C.L., Mathabhanga Sector has contested the case by filing written version denying all material allegation of the complaint contending inter-alia that the case is not maintainable and the Complainant has no cause of action to being this case. The main contention of the O.P. No.1 is that an electric meter being Sl. No. L047124 was installed by this answering O.P in the house of the Complainant on 07/08/2009. On 20/01/2013 this O.P found that the above meter of the house of the Complainant was not functioning properly. On 24/08/2013 the Complainant filed a written complaint before the office of this O.P and stating the facts of stop meter and also requesting this O.P to replace the defective meter with new one at an earliest. The Bill for those periods when the meter was not functioning was prepared as per WBERC guide line. So, the allegation of fictitious and imaginary bill does not arise.
It is the case of the O.P. No.1 that as the meter of the Complainant was not functioning, the bill for the period February-March-April, 2014 was raised for 670 units as average units on the basis of consumption history of the consumer for the period of February-March-April, 2012 as per WBERC guideline. The consumption for the period of May to July, 2012 showed unit consumption 00 as such the bill for that period in the claimed in that manner, which is justified and reasonable. Thus, all the bills for the period of 'Stop Meter' were raised as per previous consumption history of the Complainant and as per WBERC guideline. So, the allegation of fictitious bill does not arise. The Bill dated 19/11/2014 was claimed for 748 units as estimated/ adjustment units as per WBERC guideline.
It is pertinent to mention here that as the meter was stop during the said period, this estimated/adjustment units were not recorded in the meter card.
It is the further case of the O.P. No.1 that all the bills were sent to the complainant as per the history of previous consumption during the same period of previous years and as per WBERC guideline. So, the allegations of unfair trade practice in dealing and preparation of the electric bill are not true. The defective meter could not be changed due to unavailability of the new meter. Had it been so he could not pay the up to date bill to the WBSEDCL authority. There another option was open to the Complainant to file a complaint regarding those bills before the grievance call of WBSEDCL authority, which was constituted to solve such type of billing dispute. But the Complainant did not do so. Now only to harass the WBSEDCL authority has falsely filed the present case. So it can be presumed that the Complainant had no question about the authenticity of those bills. Therefore, there was no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the O.P., WBSEDCL authority towards the Complainant as such the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief/compensation as claimed in his complaint petition.
Ultimately, the O.P. No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the case with cost.
It appears that inspite of due service of Notice upon the O.P. No.2, Divisional Manager, W.B.S.E.D.C.L., Cooch Behar Division did not turn up before the Forum and accordingly the case proceeded in Ex-parte against him.
In the light of the contention of the Complainant and the O.P. No.1, the following points necessarily came up for consideration.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the Complainant a Consumer as per Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?
- Have the Opposite Parties any deficiency in service and are they liable in any way?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief/reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
We have gone through the record very carefully, perused the entire documents in the record also heard the argument at a length advanced by both the parties.
Undisputedly, the Complainant is a valuable customer as well as a consumer of the Opposite Parties. It is also not in dispute that the O.P Company installed an electric meter dated 07-08-2009 in the residence of the Complainant.
The point of the dispute is that the meter is out of order/meter stop since 08-10-2012. The Complainant claims that the bills sent to him in meter stop condition are illegal, wrong, vague and imaginary.
Point No.1.
From the discussion on this point in terms of the provision of section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the Complainant being a customer of the W.B.S.E.D.C.L. in respect of consumption of electricity is undoubtedly a consumer and as such his complaint against the O.Ps raising some allegation/dispute against the service providing by the O.Ps in the complaint as to the proper service/deficiency in service is invariably a complaint and as such the petition is a “Complaint” & the Complainant is a “Consumer” of the O.Ps.
Point No.2.
The Office & Place of Business of the O.Ps is within the district Cooch Behar i.e. within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. The value of the case is within the limit of Rs.20,000,00/-.
So, this Forum has territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the instant case.
Point No.3 & 4.
Undisputedly the Complainant had an Electric connection being Meter No. L047124 vide service connection No. 19320, Consumer ID No- 424169017 installed by the O.P. NO.1 on 07-08-2009 in her premises.
It is also not in dispute that the Complainant paid all the electricity bills as raised by the O.P. NO.1 without any interruption. Although the meter was stop from 08-10-2012 to 09-05-2015. On 10-05-2015 New meter is installed by the OP-I.
Admittedly, the complainant had an electric connection being consumer No. 424169017. On giving a close look to the material made available in the record it appears that since installation of the Electricity at the premises of the present Complainant the total electric consumption from 07-08-2009 to 08-10-2012 was 8519 Unit. Within this 38 month the complainant consume 224 unit monthly or 672 unit of electricity quarterly (three months in a quarter). Meter card produce by the complainant (annexure-1) reveals the same. The OP-1 in his written version, evidence on affidavit stated that the bill for those periods when the meter was not functioning was prepared as per WBERC guideline. The document (Annexure A to M) submit by the complainant prove that the OP-I charged the average unit of 670 (For three month or one quarter) from the complainant on the basis of the previous consumption history of the consumer. So, the average unit charged by the OP-I to the complainant is similar to the previous consumption history. So, it is not proved that the OP-I send Vague/imaginary/wrongful electric bill to the Complainant when the meter was stopped.
On 28-04-2013 the Complainant by a letter (Annexure -1) informs the OP- I about his dis-functional /stop electric meter and his grievances about incorrect electric billing of this period. It is also proved from the record that the OP-I replace the stop meter in the premises of the complainant. (No-B-3329286) on 10-05-2015.(Annexure-L).During the course of argument the complainant said that the OP-I replace his Stop electric meter with a new one after two years of receiving information from a domestic consumer without giving any information to him or the matter did not bring to the notice of this forum when a case about the same is sub-judice before this forum. On this fact the deficiency in service from the part of OP-I is proved.
Complainant files some Original documents (Annexure –B to I) which is some electric bill send by the OP-I to the complainant during the period when the electric meter was stop. Out of this document, Annexure –C, Billing Date 04-07-2014 for the month of May-June-July reveals the fact that the OP –I charged meter rent of Rs.10/- per month to the complainant. By this document the claim of the complainant about the unfair trade practice by the OP-1 is partly proved.
In the light of the above observation we are convinced to hold that the present dispute cropped up certainly due to some defects in the meter and the prayer of the Complainant to the O.P. No. 1 in this regard was not attended properly. Thus, deficiency in service cannot be ruled out against the O.Ps.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case we are convinced to hold that the Complaint be allowed but in part.
ORDER
Hence, it is ordered that,
The present Case No. CC/38/2015 be and the same is succeeds on contest but in part against the O.P-1 and Ex-parte against the O.P-2 with cost of Rs.2,000/-.
The Complainant do get an award of Rs.5, 000/- as compensation for mental pain and agony for adoption of unfair trade practice by the OPs. The O.Ps are hereby directed to pay the ordered amount jointly and/or severally to the Complainant directly within 30 days failure of which the O.Ps jointly and/or severally shall pay Rs. 50/- for each day’s delay and the amount to be accumulated shall be deposited in the “CONSUMER LEGAL AID ACCOUNT ”, West Bengal.
Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied to the parties concerned by hand/by Registered Post with A/D forthwith, free of cost, for information & necessary action, as per rules.
Dictated and corrected by me.
