IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.

CASE No.CC/146/2015.

 Date of Filing:   14.10.2015.                                                                         Date of Final Order: 17.08.2016.

Complainant : Safina Bewa, W/O Late Nurul Sk, Vill Dohitpur, P.O. Tildanga, P.S. Farakka,

                        Dist. Murshidabad.  Pin -742212.

-Vs-

Opposite Party: 1. The Station Manager, WBSEDCL, CCC, P.O. & P.S. Farakka, Dist. Murshidabad.

                           2. The Divisional Manager, WBSEDCL. Raghunathganj Division, Vill. Ummarpur,

                               P.O. Ghorshala, P.S. Raghunathganj, Dist. Murshidabad.

                       Present:                                 

                                         Sri Samaresh Kumar Mitra ……………………..Member.           

                                                                        Smt. Pranati Ali ……….……………….……………. Member

FINAL ORDER

            Smt. Pranati Ali, Presiding Member.

 Instant complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 , for rectification of the disputed bill and prepare a fresh bill as well as to continue the supply of electric power.

            The complainant’s case, in brief, is that the complainant Safina Bewa is a consumer of the OP/Station Manager, Farakka CCC, WBSEDECL, bearing Consumer ID No. 313291418. The complainant used to pay the bills regularly, which varies from Rs.200/- to Rs.800/- per month but she received the bill dt. 13.03.2015 with an amount of Rs.39, 798/- , which is very much high and fictitious as well as quite impossible to pay by the complainant as a poor Biri worker widow. Thereafter, the complainant communicated with the OP No.1 and requested to reconsider the matter, but the OPs did not pay any heed to the matter, rather asked for payment with a threat to disconnect the electric connection. The poor lady suffers a lot with mental agony and is bound to file this complaint for proper redress.

            On the other hand, The Op No.1 appears in this case by filing written version, where he denied all the allegations raised by the complainant i.e sending baseless excessive bill to the complainant and deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The OP stated that the complainant’s meter reading was not taken regularly, so the bills were not prepared according to actual consumption. The OP also stated that on 06.03.2015 the said meter reading was 6593 units and the consumption charges against 1700 units was already paid by the complainant , so the bill was prepared for 4893 units for the sum of Rs.39,798/- which is correct. But the complaint has not paid the said bill, so the meter was disconnected on 10.10.2015 by the OP No.1. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1, so the complainant is liable to pay the bill.

            The OP No.2/divisional Manager, WBSEDCL, Raghunathganj Division, is absent in this case, though notice was received by him. So, this OP is taken as ex parte in these proceedings.

            The only point for consideration is that whether the OP No.1 is liable for deficiency in service or not and whether the complainant is entitled to get relief or not.

                                                            Decision with reasons.

            The complainant submitted some documents like Xerox copy of letter, yellow card, electric bills and receipts etc.

     Perused the record , we observed that the complainant is a poor widow Biri worker, but regularly paid her electric bills mostly Rs.200/- to Rs.800/- per month , which is evident through bills and receipts submitted by the complainant. Suddenly, the complainant received one bill , meter reading on 06.03.2015 with 6593 units and amount is of Rs.39,798/- , which is really a high and absurd amount comparing with previous bills of the complainant . Astonishingly, the OP No.1 stated in his written version that this reading unit is correct, but the OP No.1 himself admitted in the written version that meter reading was legular and so, the bills were not prepared on the basis of actual consumption. The disputed bill along with some other bills and yellow card are the evidence. Even the OP No.1 also failed to prove that the units 6593 meter reading on 06.03.2015 is correct, by submitting any documentary evidence.

      After scrutinizing the disputed bill, we find out that previous reading 1700 units on 01.07.2014 and present reading 6593 units on 06.03.2015 i.e nearly 8 months but units increased ( 6593 – 1700) = 4893 units, which is also an abnormal increased, but the Op No.1 demands it is the correct reading . Besides this, bill has another defect , like bill was prepared on March, 2015 but bill months were September, October, November, 2014 and which was mentioned in the written version that the bill was for the month of June, 2015 to August, 2015 . All these evidences are examples of negligence/deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1.

     This being the situation, in the give facts and  circumstances of the case, coupled with the documents we are of the view that the OP is very much negligent in the matter of taking meter reading and making bills as well as avoiding to check/verify the reason behind this abnormal reading units. We learnt from the order of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission published on 2014(1)CPR 242(NC) that the Electricity Board cannot charge excessive as because the electric consumption of domestic units must be between 100-150 units only and the dis-appropriate bill was issued by the OP.

            Particularly, in this case also, the complainant is a poor widow Biri Maker, stated in the complaint that she used to pay Rs.200/- to Rs.800/- regularly and we also observed that the submitted bills and receipts which are very nearly of her statement in the complaint. We are unable to understand as to why the bill was not rechecking/verify by the OP, whereas the complainant requested to verify the matter. The OP did not pay any heed to the matter, rather disconnect the electric connection, but it is their duty to public as a service provider. So, it is clear an example of deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

     On the basis of above discussions and the material on record, we are of the view that the complainant is entitled to get relief as she prayed for. So, the OP should cancel all the bills from and after the disputed bill on the basis of meter reading on 06.03.2015. After rectifying the meter and giving reconnect and then start to make fresh bill on the basis of average consumption.

            Hence,

                                                                        Ordered

that the Consumer Complaint No. 146/2015 be and the same is allowed on contest against Op No.1 without any order as to cost and against  the OP No.2 is ex parte.

            The OP No.1/Station Manager, Farakka CCC, WBSEDCL, is hereby directed to cancel the disputed bill (reading date on 06.03.2015) along with all bills from and after the disputed bill, then rectify the meter and give reconnection to the complainant within 15 days and after that starts to make fresh bills as starts from 0 units on the basis of average units consumption.

     If the order is not complied with within the time frame then the OP is under obligation to carry cost of Rs.50/- per day’s delay and the amount so accumulated shall be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account.

Let a plain copy of this order be made available and be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties on contest in person, Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand under proper acknowledgment / be sent forthwith under ordinary post  to the concerned parties as per rules, for information and necessary action.

Member                                                                                                           Member