Date of Filing: 08-02-2017 Date of Final Order: 20-03-2018
Smt. Runa Ganguly, Member
The Complainant, Sri Rabindra Chandra Biswas, S/o. Late Surendra Biswas, has filed the present case u/s 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 praying for issuing direction upon the O.Ps to restrain from disconnection of the electricity, revised or rectified on the basis of the actual consumption & slab benefits and also after tallying with meter reading and to change the defective meter and also to pay (i) Rs.10,000/- for deficiency in service, (ii) Rs.15,000/- as compensation for mental pain, agony & harassment and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- with other reliefs.
Briefly stated the facts of the case can be gathered from the case record are that in the years 2013, 2014 & 2015 respectively the Complainant received electric bills from the O.Ps which reveal that, neither the meter reader has to come to the house of the Complainant premises for taking meter reading nor the O.Ps had sent the said bills to the Complainant as per proper consumption. After receiving the said bills the Complainant paid the same respectively and thereafter informed the matter to the concern authority to provide meter reader and meter reading card for regularly checking of the meter but they did not provide the same. The Complainant stated that the Meter No. L-045083 was not working properly for which he submitted a written complaint on 07/10/2015 before the office of the O.P. No.1 for redress of disputes but the O.Ps did not take any steps to resolve the issue.
Subsequently, in the month of August, 2016 after receiving one bill from one agent of the O.Ps, the Complainant became shocked because it reveals that the said bill month from August, 2016 to October, 2016, (previous reading date 17/05/2016 and present reading date 18/08/2016) units consumed 17632, amounting to Rs.1,63,151/- which is illegal and improper. The Complainant went to the office of the O.P. No.1 for rectification of the said bill as per consumption but the O.P. No.1 did not pay any heed to it. Thereafter, the Complainant went to the office of the O.P. No.1 on several occasions and ultimately lodged a written complaint on 01/09/2016.
In reply, the O.P. No.1 asked the Complainant not to worry about the matter and also informed that they would issue a fresh bill on the basis of slab benefits. Afterwards, the Complainant received another bill in the month from November, 2016, to January, 2017, unit consumed 48, amounting to Rs.1,09,110/-, and outstanding dues of Rs.1,08,802/- from which it was clear that said the bill was not revised or rectified on the basis of actual consumptions and slab benefits. Thereafter, the Complainant went to the office of the O.P. Nos.1 & 2 for resolving the matter and the O.P. Nos.1 & 2 informed the Complainant to deposit the outstanding amount to avoid disconnection. On 06/02/2016 the staff of the O.Ps went to the house of the Complainant’s premises for disconnection of electricity for non-payment and the Complainant resisted the same and then the Complainant faced with the onslaught of the staff of the O.Ps and threatening untoward consequences including prosecution and arrest. Then the O.Ps returned without disconnection of electricity. However, no such opportunity has been given by the O.Ps and hence the action of the O.Ps for doing disconnection of electricity supply is illegal, arbitrary and also deficiency in service.
The Complainant further stated that he is always ready and willing to pay the bill amount for actual electrical consumption. The complainant is unable to pay the said inflated amount. The Complainant has not received any effective result from the O.Ps. In that event the Complainant debarred him from availing of the slabs benefits due to negligent manner of service of the O.Ps. Thus, the Complainant has suffered from mental pain and agony as well as irreparable loss.
Hence, finding no other alternative the Complainant has filed the present case against the O.Ps seeking reliefs and compensation as incorporated in the prayer portion of the complaint.
In the present case the notice upon the O.P. No.1 has been duly served. On behalf of the O.P. No.1, Ld. Advocate, Sri Dhrubajyoti Karmakar appeared by filing W/V and contested the case contending inter-alia that the present case is not maintainable in its present form as well as in law. This O.Ps made denial of some specific allegations against him save and except the statements which are matters of record.
None appears on behalf of the O.P. No.2 in-spite of due service of notice for which this case proceeded in Ex-parte against the O.P. No.2.
The prime contention of this O.P. No.1 is that the Complainant has been enjoying electric power in his premises being the consumer of W.B.S.E.D.C.L bearing Consumer Id No.424023308 but it is denied that the Complainant was paying bills regularly on the basis of meter reading which was taken by the staffs of the W.B.S.E.D.C.L. It is pertinent to mention here that whenever meter reader went to the premises of the Complainant for taking meter reading since April, 2014 on every occasion the Complainant resisted them to collect the actual meter reading after verification of the meter in the pretext that the meter is not functioning properly. The Complainant always verified the meter himself and reported the present consumption of the meter to the staff of W.B.S.E.D.C.L and gave the yellow card to the staff for note down the meter reading for preparation of the bill and on the basis of such consumption, the Complainant has paid the electric bill since April, 2014 to April, 2016. In this way a huge consumption was actually accumulated in the meter of the Complainant. Though the Complainant consumed higher units he has paid electric bills for lesser units by supplying incorrect meter reading to the staff of W.B.S.E.D.C.L.
The O.P. No.1 further contended that no complaint was made by the Complainant before this O.P prior to 07/10/2015 regarding the meter and/or electric bill. Thereafter, on 07/10/2015 the Complainant filed a complaint before the S.M., Mathabhanga C.C.C., W.B.S.E.D.C.L by stating that “since few months the existing meter is showing pulse frequently and showing various readings as such he has to pay excess bill” and he prayed for installation of new meter. After receiving the said complaint the staff of W.B.S.E.D.C.L visited the premises of the Complainant and almost forcefully checked the meter and found that the meter is in good condition so no action was taken by this O.P for changing the existing meter of the Complainant.
On 03/08/2016 this O.P personally visited the premises of the Complainant and inspected the meter and found meter reading 22706 units then seeing this present reading the O.P became astonished and verifying old yellow card and asked the Complainant as well as his meter reading collector to unearth the actual truth. After proper scrutiny of the documents and investigation it has came to the knowledge of this O.P that the Complainant confused the meter reader on every occasion by saying that the meter is defective and/or is giving pulse frequently and/or some occasions he has supplied the meter reading out of his own will but he never allowed the meter reader to inspect the meter physically. The Complainant thought that in this way he could suppress the truth of consumption of his meter deliberately to deceive the W.B.S.E.D.C.L for his wrongful gain. Thereafter on 16/08/2016 this O.P along with his staff went to the house of the Complainant for taking periodical meter reading for preparation of the bill for the month of August, 2016, September, 2016 & October, 2016 and found that the present meter reading was 22852 units and accordingly the bill dated 18/08/2016 was prepared claiming consumption of 17632 units amounting to Rs.1,59,885/- (at a time within first due date) which was justified and in accordance with law.
On 01/09/2016 the Complainant submitted a complaint before the S.M., Mathabhanga C.C.C., and W.B.S.E.D.C.L stated that “at the time of preparation of bill huge advance units were shown and the Complainant is unable to pay the bills for those advance units and ultimately the Complainant prays before the authority for consideration of the matter”. But it was denied by the O.P. No.1 that they would issue a fresh bill with slab benefits and O.P. No. 1 did not pay any heed to the complaint as alleged by the Complainant in his complaint. It is pertinent to mention here that as no application was received from the consumer praying for rectification or correction of bill so the question of issuing fresh bill does not arise.
It is the case of the O.P. No.1 that at the time of preparation of spot bill for the month of November, 2016, December, 2016 & January, 2017, in the spot bill OSD shows default due date up to 15/10/2016 i.e. Rs.54,451/- + Rs.54,352/- = Rs.1,08,803/- with current bill amount of Rs.306/- for the month of November, 2016, December, 2016 & January, 2017 total amounting to Rs.54,451/- + Rs.54,352/- + Rs.306/- = Rs.1,09,110/-.
After 16/11/2016 this O.P received a letter from the Assistant Director, Consumer Affairs & FBP, Cooch Behar along with a complaint of Haritosh Biswas on behalf of the consumer alleging defective meter. After receiving the said complaint this O.P took much initiative and on 07/12/2016 installed a series meter/check meter besides the existing meter of the consumer vide check meter no. OB4740262. On 16/12/2016 the said series/check meter was removed. Following are the particulars found by this O.P at the time of installation and removal of the check meter :
Existing Meter No. L-045083,
Reading on 07/12/2016 - 23417 units,
Reading on 16/12/2016 - 23430 units,
Unit consumption - 13 units,
Check/ Series Meter No. OB4740262,
Reading on 07/12/2016 - 000000 units,
Reading on 16/12/2016 - 12.8 units i.e. 13 units,
Unit consumption - 13 units.
Thereafter an inspection report was prepared by this O.P in presence of the consumer’s representative Sri Haritosh Biswas and another witness which was duly signed by this O.P, Haritosh Biswas and the said witness. From the said report it is evident that the existing meter is found correct in all respect. A copy of the said inspection report was handed over to the consumer by this O.P being Office Memo No. DLM/CCC/892 dated 16/12/2016 which was duly received by the consumer and in the said report, the Complainant was requested to pay the bill to avoid disconnection. Then on 16/12/2016 this O.P vide his Office Memo No. DLM/CCC/891 dated 16/12/2016 sent another letter to the Complainant regarding realization of outstanding electric bills. On 20/12/2016 this O.P vide his Office Memo No. DLM/CCC/911 dated 20/12/2016 sent a reply to the Assistant Director, Consumer Affairs & FBP, Cooch Behar stating correctness of the existing meter. As the existing meter was found correct in all respect, the consumption of the said meter was also normal consumption. So no action for replacement of the existing meter and/or rectification of bill for the month of Aug., Sept. & Oct., 2016 was taken by this O.P. Therefore, there was no illegality in the bill for the month of Aug., Sept. & Oct., 2016. By putting all this answering O.P. stated that it has no Deficiency in service. Therefore, the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief from this answering O.P and the O.P. No.1 also prayed for dismissal of this case with cost.
On the basis of above versions, the following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the Complainant a Consumer as per provision under 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?
- Whether the Complainant entitled to get any relief/reliefs, as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
We have gone through the record very carefully and perused the evidence on affidavit, written argument of the parties along with relevant documents and heard the argument of the parties at length.
Point No.1.
Admittedly, the Complainant has an electric service connection obtained from the O.P. Thus, the relation between the Complainant and the O.P. so established from the record, we are convinced to hold that the Complainant is the consumer as per section 2 1(d) of the C.P. Act 1986.
Point No. 2.
The office of the O.P. is situated within this District and the complaint value is far less than the prescribed limit. Thus, this Forum has every jurisdiction to try the present dispute.
Point Nos.3 & 4.
Both the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and to avoid repetition.
Admittedly, the Complainant is a consumer of the O.P. WBSEDCL. It is the case of the Complainant that the Complainant enjoying electric power since 2009 but the Meter Reader of O.P. did not take periodical reading regularly and the Complainant also noticed that the existing meter was not working properly and he made a written complaint on 07.10.2015 to the O.P. but the O.P. did not take any positive step. Suddenly, in the month of August2016 the Complainant received a bill of Rs.163151/- showing consumed units 17632. The Complainant then contacted the O.P. for rectification of the said bill and filed a complaint on 01.09.2016 with a request for giving slab benefits. The O.P. has given an assurance that they would issue a rectified bill but they didn’t do that for which the Complainant did not make payment of huge amount of bill dated 18.08.2016.
It is the case of the O.P. is that the Complainant did not pay the electric bill regularly on the basis of meter reading. The Complainant resisted the meter reader from taking actual meter reading since April 2014 for his illegal gain. Further the Complainant did not produce old yellow card before this Forum. The Complainant did not pay the bill regularly as per actual consumption for which there exists outstanding dues in electric bill of the Complainant. The meter was not defective as alleged by the Complainant. The Complainant has to pay the bill as per his consumption unit otherwise the O.P. No. 1 will suffer irreparable loss.
Annexure “A” goes to show that between 16/04/2011 and 25/10/2014, the O.P took reading only twice and thereafter there is no such reflection of reading in the Yellow Card.
Annexure “B” reveals that the complainant paid some electric bills during the period from 01.12.2009 to 04.08.16. On 01/09/2016 the Complainant made a written complaint before the O.P. No.1 for changing the existing meter after receiving the bill of Rs.1,63,151/- for the period from 17/05/2016 to 16/08/2016 showing consumed units 17632.
The O.P. No.1 along with his staff visited the premises of the Complainant on 16/08/2016 for preparation of bill for the month of August, 2016, September, 2016 & October, 2016 and found present meter reading was 22852 and accordingly the bill dated 18/08/2016 was prepared claiming consumption of 17632 units (previous reading 5220 units as on 17.05.16) amounting to Rs.1,59,885/-
Annexure “1” goes to show that previous reading date 17/05/2016 showing units 5220 and present reading date 16/08/2016 showing 22852 units. Thus during that period total consumed units was 17632.
Annexure “3” goes to show that an inspection was made for verification the existing meter bearing No. L045083 of the Complainant for detection the defect. The O.P. No.1 installed a new meter (checked meter) bearing No. OB4740262 after installation of check meter it appeared that unit consumption was same in two meters i.e. 13 units in 9 days. Thus, it was found that the existing meter of the Complainant is correct in all respect and so that the consumption of unit also normal.
The Complainant’s case is for rectification of the bill as per actual consumption but the O.P. did not pay any heed even after receiving the letter dated 01.09.2016.
Be that as it may, on foregoing discussion it is clear to us that the existing meter of the Complainant found correct and the Complainant consumed units as charged by the O.Ps. Besides, it is also crystal clear that the meter reader of the O.P. No.1 did not record meter reading regularly for which consumer cannot be deprived from slab benefit especially when it has not been mentioned in the bills that meter reading has not been recorded properly due to fault of the consumer. The O.P. No. 1 has taken plea that the Complainant resisted the meter reader to take proper reading and the Complainant supplied meter reading according to his sweet will. Surprisingly, the O.P. No. 1 has not even stated that he has taken action against the meter reader who supplied the reading to the billing section without taking actual meter reading. Thus, in the present dispute , the O.P. No. 1 cannot evade its liability.
From the hearing of the parties and the documents made available in the record, it is clear that the Staff of the W.B.S.E.D.C.L is negligent enough to visit the premises of the complainant for taking periodical reading. This act and conduct of the O.P, W.B.S.E.D.C.L be termed as deficiency in service.
We think that the O.P. may be directed to regenerate the bill dated 16.08.2016 with slab benefit from 26.10.2014 subject to adjustment of any intermediary bill already paid by the Complainant and the Complainant may be directed to pay the actual bill for the said disputed period along with current bill within stipulated period to be fixed by the OPs.
In the result, the case succeeds but in part.
Hence,
It is Ordered,
That the present Case No. CC/11/2017 be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.P. No. 1 with cost of Rs. 2,000/- and dismissed ex-parte against the O.P. No. 2 without cost.
The O.P. No. 1 is directed to regenerate the bill dated 16.08.2016 with slab benefit from 26.10.2014 by 45 days, subject to adjustment of any intermediary bill already paid by the Complainant and the Complainant be directed to pay the actual bill for the said disputed period along with current bill within stipulated period to be fixed by the OPs.
The O.P. No.1 is directed to make payment of Rs.5,000/- to the Complainant as compensation for deficiency in service of the O.P. No.1 by 45 days. The O.P. No.1 is also directed to make payment of Rs.2,000/- to the Complainant by 45 days as litigation cost. The entire order shall be complied by the O.P. No.1 within 45 days i/d Rs.50/- shall be levied for each day’s delay and the amount so accumulated will be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account.
Let plain copy of this Order be supplied to the parties concerned by hand/by Post forthwith, free of cost for information & necessary action. The copy of the Final Order will also be available in the following Website:
confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me.
