Hon'ble Mr. Haradhan Mukhopadhyay, President.
The fact of the case of the Complainant is summarised in black and white to the effect that the Complainant Smt. Bindu Bala Barman is a consumer having service connection No.2463 and Consumer Id No.424138501 Consumer No. A131555 under the OP WBSEDCL. The Complainant has been regularly paying the bill on the basis of meter reading taken up by the OP. On 21.12.18 the Complainant received inflated electric bill from the OP for the month of January, 2019 to March,2019 units consumed 190, total bill amounting to Rs.35,481/- only. The Complainant contacted to the O.P. No.1 with the request to rectify the said bill but the O.P. No.1 did not pay any heed to the same. Thereafter the Complainant went to the Office of the O.P. No.1 several times against which the OP told that there is nothing to worry, they would issue a fresh bill on the basis of slab benefit. The Complainant filed a written complaint on 14.01.19 but the OP did not take any step. Subsequently, the staff of the OP went to house of the Complainant for disconnecting the electricity for non payment of bill. The Complainant tried to resist them but the OP threatened to prosecute and arrest the Complainant and after words issued a notice for disconnection of electricity. The excess bill of Rs. 35,481/- raised by the O.P. No.1 & 2 is unjust and improper. The Complainant has been paying the bill regularly and wants to pay the actual electric bill on the basis of meter reading but is unable to pay the inflated bill. Due to not responding with the prayer, the OP has been debarred from availing of the slab benefit for which she sustained mental pain and agony and unnecessary harassment. This behaviour of the OP tantamounts to deficiency in service. The cause of action for the present case arose on December,2018 when the Complainant received the inflated bill. Having found no alternative the Complainant filed the present case with a prayer for an award of Rs. 10,000/- towards deficiency in service, Rs.15,000/- for mental pain and agony and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation.
The O.Ps namely O.P. No.1 Station Manager, Sitai Customer Care Centre, WBSEDCL and O.P. No.2 Divisional Manager, WBSEDCL contested the case by filing written version denying each and every allegations of the Complainant. The positive case of the OP in a few words is that the Complainant paid electric bill for the last time on 26.09.16 for Rs.9,662/-. The spot bill dated 21.12.18 is proper and justified and lawful which was prepared after deducting. The said bill was prepared after deducting the previous reading from the present reading which is 190 units for the period January, 2019 to March, 2019. The Complainant visited the Office of O.P. No.1 on 14.01.19 and submitted a written complaint to the receiving section against the bill dated 21.12.18. The O.P. No.1 never gave any assurance to the Complainant to issue a fresh bill providing slab benefit. The said statement is absolutely manufactured and a Cook & Bull story. After laps of 15 days from the date of receiving the disconnection notice the staff of O.P. No.1 went to the house of the Complainant, but the Complainant and her associates resisted the staff of WBSEDCL having found no alternative to perform official duty and misbehave with them. Having found no alternative the staff of WBSEDCL returned back without disconnection. The bill for the month of January, 2019 to March, 2019 was claimed for 190 units for Rs.1060/- excluding the outstanding dues of Rs.34,503.82/-. This bill was a spot bill and was justified and lawful. After receiving the content from Complainant dated 14.01.19 the O.P. No.1 perused the unit consumption and talked with the meter reader cum spot bill provider and found everything alright regarding meter and other electrical fitting and also the Complainant was explained in details. Instead of paying the bill the Complainant filed the instant case on 18.01.19. There is no cause of action to file the present case against the OP. There is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The Complainant therefore claimed that the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.
After perusing the pleadings of the parties and having under gone the argument advanced by the parties to the case the Commission is of the view that the following points are required to be decided in this case.
POINTS FOR DETERMINATION
- Whether the Complainant is a consumer under the C.P. Act?
- Whether the disputed electric bill is unjustified, illegal, arbitrary and inflated?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
- To what other relief if any the Complainant is entitled to get?
DECISION WITH REASONS
POINT NO.1
The Complainant claimed that she is a consumer under the C.P. Act. The O.Ps evasively denied the status of the consumer without specify any ground.
Having perused the pleadings of parties and the relation between the Complainant and the O.Ps I am of the considered view that the Complainant is a consumer under the C.P. Act.
Accordingly, Point No.1 is decided on behalf of the Complainant.
POINT NO.2
The crux of the case relates to this point regarding the question as to whether the disputed by is inflated, arbitrary, illegal and unjustified.
The Complainant in order to establish the case adduced evidence by filing evidence on affidavit. The OP in order to discard the said allegation adduced evidence. The Complainant also filed some documents being Annexure- A to D. Annexure – A is the meter reading for the relevant period as well as the previous period. Annexure-B is the disputed bill for the period 27.09.18 to 21.12.18. Annexure-C is a letter dated 12.01.19 to the O.P. No.1 claiming status report of the electricity consumed and Annexure-D is an illegible Xerox copy of notice under section 56 of electricity Act, 2003. As per Annexure-D the disputed bill relates to the period 27.09.18 to 21.12.18 total units consumed is 190 units, amount of claim for the said disputed bill is Rs.34,858/-.
Ld. Advocate for the Complainant argued that initially the bill was inflated and thereafter it was rectified for a sum of Rs.35,481/-.
Ld. Defence Counsel argued that the plea of the Complainant that he is paying bill regularly is absolutely false in as much as the Complainant paid the bill lastly on 26.09.16 and thereafter no amount was paid. Therefore the Complainant is a habitual defaulter.
In order to ascertain the veracity of the submission of the Complainant let us take recourse of the best document in this case being the meter reading card.
Annexure-A being the meter reading card stands in the name of the Complainant Smt. Bindu Bala Barman, Purba Sitai, Cooch Behar being Consumer No. A131555, Connection No.2463. As per the said meter reading card (Annexure-A) the bill was raised since 2007. It is revealed from the meter reading that the meter reading was taken on quarterly basis. Last meter reading taken in the year 2016 on 07.04.16 against which the Complainant paid Rs.9,662/- on 26.09.16 where and outstanding dues of Rs.34,503.82/- is lying outstanding. Thereafter meter reading was taken on 08.01.17, 31.03.17, 06.10.17 onwords up to 23.06.18. The Complainant could not file any document to show that the bill for the period of 2017 and 2018 were paid by the Complainant. Therefore the plea of the OP that the Complainant is a defaulter stands well established and it discards the case of the Complainant that the bill was inflated. As per the said meter reading total units consumed as on 27.09.18 is Rs.6,826/- and as on 21.12.18 7016 units. So the total units consumed during the disputed period is 200 units. Thus in addition to the outstanding bill by adding the current bill of 190 units the total claim has been raised by the OP Company for a sum of Rs.35,481/-.
Ld. Lawyer for the Complainant could not advance any argument against the said calculation available from the documentary evidence as well as the argument advanced by the Ld. Defence Counsel.
In order to have a cross cheek of the disputed bill let us have a close scrutiny of the meter reading. After perusing the Annexure-A being the meter reading card it is found that on an average, approximately 200 units was consumed by the Complainant. Therefore the disputed bill of 190 units cannot be said to be inflated. The amount of the bill to the tune of Rs.34,858/- may be considered as inflated in view of the amount of the bill but actually it has been inflated due to not paying the bill by the Complainant since 2016.
The Complainant did not challenge the said bill of Rs.34,530/- when it was outstanding as on 26.09.16. Complainant also never corresponded with the OP Company about the previous outstanding bill. There is also nothing to show that the Complainant was eager to pay the outstanding bill.
By Annexure-C being the letter of Bindu Bala Barman to the OP Company Station Manager claimed that she paid the electric bill successive terms. But the Complainant did not file any document to show that she paid the electric bill successively or even in spite of the said outstanding bill of Rs.34,503.82/- up to the period 19.12.18.
Annexure- D is the notice under section 56 of the Electricity Act which is a weapon in the hand of the OP Company but filed by the Complainant as Annexure- D. As per section 56 of the Electricity Act, electric connection can be disconnected after serving notice.
Previously we have assessed that the Complainant could not establish that she paid the outstanding electric bill within due time. Accordingly a notice under section 56 of the Electricity Act is very much relevant and the OP by taking recourse of Law served the said notice and took appropriate action.
In the light of the discussion made here in above and having assessed the evidence of both the parties the Commission comes to the finding that the disputed bill is not inflated, arbitrary and illegal/ unlawful/unjustified.
Accordingly, point No.2 is answered against the Complainant.
POINTS NO. 3 & 4.
Previously I have ascertained that the disputed bill was not inflated, arbitrary and unjustified. These two issues are corollary to the aforesaid issue No.2. The OP acted lawfully by applying the provisions of the Electricity Act and as such the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for. In the result both the point-3 and 4 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/6/2019 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 is also available in the official website: www.confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me.
