Date of Filing: 07.05.2015 Date of Final Order: 29.01.2016
The gist of the complaint as can be gathered from the case record is that the Complainant, Smt. Krishna Haldar took electric connection from the O.P, W.B.S.E.D.C.L since 30/06/2012 vide Consumer Serial No. K140313, Service Connection No.461, Consumer ID No.424084005 and Meter No. T2172912. The Complainant paid electric bill amount in due time up to August, 2014. Since 21/05/2014 the electric meter of the Complainant was in bad condition for which meter reading did not show in the screen of the said meter from the said date. Thereafter, the Complainant informed to the O.P to change the said electric meter with another new meter and also she filed one report which docket No.94503070 dated 27/06/2014 regarding the said matter but the O.P did not care about this matter.
After that the Complainant received one electric bill from the O.P for the month of September, 2014 to November, 2014 of Rs.4,072.62/-. After receiving the said bill on 15/10/2014 the Complainant filed an application to the O.P, electric office with mentioning that to send correct electric bill and the O.P received her application vide Receiving No.1545 dated 15/10/2014. But did not take any step by the O.P regarding issuance of such amount of electric bill after knowing bad condition of the said meter. The Complainant again received one electric bill from the O.P for the month of December, 2014 to February, 2015 of Rs.2,041.29/- and the Complainant again on 26/12/2014 filed an application to the O.P, with mentioning that to send correct electric bill and the O.P received her application vide Receiving No.2228 dated 26/12/2014. On several occasion the Complainant informed the said matter to the O.P but she did not get any good result from the O.P. Thereafter, the Complainant again received one electric bill for the month of March, 2015 to May, 2015 of Rs.559.05/- and the O.P refused to take the current bill amount without previous bill amount.
Finding no other alternate, the Complainant lodged a written complaint to the Assistant Director, Consumer Affairs & Fair Business Practices, Cooch Behar being Complaint Index No.832 dated 31/12/2014 and as a result on 03/04/2015 one new meter was installed by the O.P to the house of the Complainant.
Due to such activities of the O.Ps, the Complainant is suffering from mental pain & agony and harassment. The O.Ps also adopted their deficiency in service and they are liable to issue correct bill against the Complainant and also to pay all damages and loss to the Complainant.
Hence, the Complainant filed the instant case with enclosed relevant documents before this Forum and prayed for direction to the O.Ps (1) to issue correct electric bill with minimum rate for deficiency in service against the Complainant also to pay (2) Rs.75,000/- as compensation for mental pain & agony and harassment and (3) Rs.15,000/- towards litigation costs, besides other relief(s) as the Forum deem fit, as per law & equity.
The O.P, The Station Manager, W.B.S.E.D.C.L., Khagrabari, Cooch Behar 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 bring the case. The main contention of the O.P is that subsequently, the said meter was not functioning and was not displaying any reading in the screen of the meter. When the staffs of this O.P went to the house of the Complainant on 21/05/2014, they found that the meter was not functioning. Then they noted this matter in the meter card/Yellow Card. Subsequently, on 27/06/2014 the Complainant informed the said matter to the office of this O.P.
The O.P further contended that when the non-functioning of the meter came to the knowledge of this O.P, it was not possible for him to prepare the next electric bills as per the physical consumption of the existing meter. Then as per WBERC guideline an electric bill for the month of September, October & November, 2014 was raised showing 648 units as estimated/adjustment units in the name of the Complainant claiming Rs.4,072/- for a period of 101 days consumption i.e. 6.41 units per day consumption. It is pertinent to mention that in the previous year (2013) during the same period when the meter was in working condition, it consumed 597 units in 93 days. So, when the meter was in working condition, in the same period of the previous year it consumed 6.41 units per day and when the meter was not functioning this O.P sent the bill showing the said consumption per day. So, the said bill was correct and justified and the same was prepared as per WBERC guideline, also the question of the of the correction bills does not arise.
Thereafter another bill for the month of December, 2014 to February, 2015 of Rs.2,014/- was raised showing 343 units as estimated/adjustment units for 93 days consumption i.e. 3.688 units per day. The bill for the same period of the previous year was charged with 350 units (3.68 units per day consumption) for 95 days.
Then another bill for the month of March, 2015 to May, 2015 of Rs.559/- was raised showing 92 units as estimated/adjustment units for 77 days consumption i.e. 1.19 units per day. The bill for the same period of the previous year (2014) was raised 109 units (1.19 units per day) for 91 days.
The above bills were raised on the basis of actual consumption of the meter during the previous year by the Complainant. But the Complainant neglected to pay those bills.
It is the case of the O.P that it is not possible for the W.B.S.E.D.C.L. authority to provide new meter to a consumer soon after any complaint is received from a consumer due to crisis of meter. In this situation electric bills are raised as per the calculation mentioned above as per WBERC Rules.
The O.P further stated in his W/V that on 03/04/2015 the defective meter of the Complainant was replaced by new meter and now the total billing system is controlled/operated by the computer generated software system. So, if there is any outstanding bills of the customer remains unpaid, then the system will not accept the current bill. It is not depends upon the wish of the O.P, W.B.S.E.D.C.L. authority. Therefore, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.
Ultimately, the O.P prayed for dismissal of the case with costs.
In the light of the contention of the both parties the following points necessarily came up for consideration.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the Complainant 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 O.Ps any deficiency in service as alleged by the Complainant 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 Complainant.
Point No.1.
Evidently, the Complainant has been getting electricity from the O.P. No.1 Electric Company on payment of bills.
So, the Complainant is consumer under the O.P. No.1 Electric Company u/s 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986.
Point No.2.
Office of the O.P. No.1, Electric Company is situated at Khagrabari, Cooch Behar within jurisdiction of this Forum and total valuation of this case is Rs.90,000/- i.e. far less than pecuniary limit of this Forum.
So, this Forum has territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to try this case.
During argument, Ld. Advocate/Agent of the O.P submitted that in view of Rule 3.5.1 of West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code) Regulations, 2013, in case of any dispute in respect of bills amount, the consumer may lodge with the Grievance Redressal Office on the Central Grievance Redressal Officer of the Licencee (O.P Electric Company).
So, this Forum has no jurisdiction to try the case regarding disputed electric bill.
We find that it may be that there is provision regarding lodging of complaint before the Grievance Redressal Office for disputed bill but there is nothing to show that jurisdiction of this Forum has been ousted in any way.
So, this Forum has every jurisdiction to try this case.
Point No.3 & 4.
Both points are taken up together for convenience of discussion.
We find that the Complainant, Smt. Krishna Haldar in her complaint and evidence stated that she took electric connection from the O.P, W.B.S.E.D.C.L since 30/06/2012 vide Consumer Serial No. K140313, Service Connection No.461, Consumer ID No.424084005 and Meter No. T2172912. The Complainant paid electric bill amount in due time up to August, 2014. Since 21/05/2014 the electric meter of the Complainant was in bad condition for which meter reading did not show in the screen of the said meter from the said date. Thereafter, the Complainant informed to the O.P to change the said electric meter with another new meter and also she filed one report which docket No.94503070 dated 27/06/2014 regarding the said matter but the O.P did not care about this matter.
From the copy of series of bills submitted by the Complainant it appears that she is consumer under the O.P, Electric Company having Meter No. T2172912.
According to her since 21/05/2014 her electric meter became defunct.
Yellow Card of the Complainant shows that since 21/05/2014 her meter has not been functioning.
The O.P, Electric Company has not denied the factum of defunctioning of the meter of the Complainant since 21/05/2014.
The Complainant further stated that she received one electric bill from the O.P for the month of September, 2014 to November, 2014 of Rs.4,072.62/-. The Complainant again received one electric bill from the O.P for the month of December, 2014 to February, 2015 of Rs.2,041.29/-. Thereafter, the Complainant again received one electric bill for the month of March, 2015 to May, 2015 of Rs.559.05/-.
It is the further case of the Complainant that immediate after receipt of the said bills she requested the O.P, Electric Company to send proper and correct bill but in vain.
The Complainant has filed copy of letter dated 15/10/2014 and 26/12/2014 in this regard.
On the other hand it is the case of the O.P, Electric Company that when the non-functioning of the meter came to the knowledge of this O.P, it was not possible for him to prepare the next electric bills as per the physical consumption of the existing meter. Then as per WBERC guideline an electric bill for the month of September, October & November, 2014 was raised showing 648 units as estimated/adjustment units in the name of the Complainant claiming Rs.4,072/- for a period of 101 days consumption i.e. 6.41 units per day consumption. It is pertinent to mention that in the previous year (2013) during the same period when the meter was in working condition, it consumed 597 units in 93 days. So, when the meter was in working condition, in the same period of the previous year it consumed 6.41 units per day and when the meter was not functioning this O.P sent the bill showing the said consumption per day. So, the said bill was correct and justified and the same was prepared as per WBERC guideline, also the question of the of the correction bills does not arise.
Thereafter another bill for the month of December, 2014 to February, 2015 of Rs.2,014/- was raised showing 343 units as estimated/adjustment units for 93 days consumption i.e. 3.688 units per day. The bill for the same period of the previous year was charged with 350 units (3.68 units per day consumption) for 95 days.
Then another bill for the month of March, 2015 to May, 2015 of Rs.559/- was raised showing 92 units as estimated/adjustment units for 77 days consumption i.e. 1.19 units per day. The bill for the same period of the previous year (2014) was raised 109 units (1.19 units per day) for 91 days.
The above bills were raised on the basis of actual consumption of the meter during the previous year by the Complainant. But the Complainant neglected to pay those bills.
It is the case of the Complainant that disputed bills have been raised by the O.P whimsically and without any basis.
We find that the Complainant has submitted disputed bills for the month of September, 2014 to November, 2014 of Rs.4,072.62/-, December, 2014 to February, 2015 of Rs.2,041.29/- and March, 2015 to May, 2015 of Rs.559.05/-.
But on comparing the said disputed bills and correspondence bills for the same period (months) in the previous year, we find that disputed bills have been prepared on the basis of bills for the same period in previous year.
We find that in view of rule 3.7.1 of the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code) Regulation, 2013 in case a meter is not read due to inaccessibility, the consumer shall be charged provisionally at the prevailing tariff on the basis of the following consumption as will be decided by the licensee –
- Average consumption for the last six months.
- Consumption of similar period of the last year.
So, in view of our above made discussion, it is clear that the O.P, Electric Company has not done any illegally or irregularity in preparing disputed bills on the basis of consumption of similar period of the last year.
It is the case of the Complainant that the O.P refused to take her present bill.
In their reply the O.P submitted that now the total billing system is controlled/operated by the computer generated software system. So, if there is any outstanding bills of the customer remains unpaid, then the system will not accept the current bill. It is not depends upon the wish of the O.P, W.B.S.E.D.C.L. authority.
We find substance in the submission of the O.P.
Evidently, disputed meter was stopped on 21/05/2014 but new meter was supplied on 03/04/2015. So, the O.P has taken about one year time to replace the meter.
In this regard, it is the case of the O.P that due to non-availability of new meter delay has been cropped up in replacing the said meter.
We find that due to non-supply of the new meter the Complainant has not faced any problem as there are other norms to assess reading of electric consumption.
Considering over all matter into consideration and materials on record, we are constrained to hold that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P, Electric Company and the case is liable to be dismissed.
Thus, these points are decided against the Complainant.
Accordingly, the case fails.
ORDER
Hence, it is ordered that,
The present Case No. CC/39/2015 be and the same is dismissed on contest without any costs against the O.P.
Let plain copy of this Final Order be made available and be supplied free of cost, to the concerned party.
Dictated and corrected by me.
President President
District Consumer Disputes District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar
Member Member
District Consumer Disputes District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar
