DATE OF FILING : 11-12-2013.
DATE OF S/R : 17-01-2014.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 28-07-2014.
Smt. Raj Lakshmi Bhattacharya,
wife of Madan Mohan Bhattacharyya,
residing at Shanpur ( N ), Shibtala,
old P.S. Jagacha, new P.S. Dasnagar,
District – Howrah,
PIN – 711105. ------------------------------------------------------------------ COMPLAINANT.
- Versus -
1. The Station Manager,
WBSEDCL,
Dasnagar Balitikuri 33/11 KV Sub- STN Complex,
Howrah – 711105.
2. The District Engineer,
WBSEDCL, N.S. Road,
Howrah – 711101.
3. The Chairman,
WBSEDCL, Bidyut Bhawan, Salt Lake City,
Kolkata – 700091. -------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
President : Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.
Member : Shri P.K. Chatterjee.
Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
F I N A L O R D E R
1. The instant case filed by the complainant U/S 12 of the C .P. Act, 1986 ( as amended upto date ) against o.ps. alleging deficiency in service U/Ss 2(1)(g), 2(1)(o) of the C .P. Act, 1986 wherein the complainant has prayed for a direction to be given upon the O.Ps. WBSEDCL Authority for adjustment of the erratic energy bill for the period July, 2013 to September, 2013 sent to the complainant and other relief/s as she entitled to.
2. The brief facts of the case is that the complainant is a bonafide consumer vide consumer no. D 055032 having connected load 0.44 kw at her resident has raised objection against energy bill sent by the o.ps. as average consumption during the period where the meter is found defective i.e., July, 2013 to September, 2013 amounting to Rs. 11,528/-, in spite of the facts that the energy consumption through the meter bearing no. T 1457173 where consumption is recorded during disputed period split / divided in other meters in the name of her son whom the electric consumption so consumed were recorded in the individual meter /s as per record for which the average consumption as stated is arbitrary and beyond the norms of WBSERC Regulations and that to the said inflated / erratic consumption bill so sent should be either cancelled / adjusted in the corresponding bill. Hence the case.
3. The O.Ps. WBSEDCL Authority vide their written version contended interalia the energy bill for the period July, 2013 to September, 2013 so sent was on average consumption during the period when the meter was found defective and bill raised was as per WBERC Regulations taking into consideration that the consumption period during the previous year consumption and that to the said defective meter was replaced on 20-11-2013 by a new meter and they have no knowledge of sharing of load to the other co-occupied person holding in the same residence / apartment for which bills so raised is justified and the instant complaint has no merit and liable to be dismissed with costs.
4. Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :
i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps?
ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief and compensation as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
5. Both the points are taken up together for consideration. Admittedly the complainant raised / lodged complaint both verbally / written for excess raising of energy bill by the o.p. no. 1 against recording energy consumption through, meter bearing no. T 1457173. The o.p. no. 1 shall have to give due importance of the complainant lodged by the complainant to mitigate the grievances by installing a challenged / checked meter side by side of the existing meter with proper witness / signature of the complainant or his representative to avoid any ambiguity. Moreover, the o.ps. or his representative ought to have the effort to tally/ ascertain the consumption pattern of the energy consumption so called energy recorded of the replace meter with that of five numbers meter in the same premises through computerized system already in existence so that a consolidated statement / observation could be in hand during the period of dispute against which was not done caused the complainant was harassed and sufferings with prolonged mental agony tantamount gross deficiency in service. Moreover the o.p. no. 1 being a licensee should take due care upon his bonafide consumer to ensure the correct energy bill which ought to be made to avoid such irregularities for which this is a fit case where complaint so raised by the complainant is fit for getting relief as prayed for.
Both the points are accordingly disposed of.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 433 of 2013 ( HDF 433 of 2013 ) be allowed on contest with costs against the O.P. no.1, WBSEDCL Authority.
The O.P. no. 1, Station Manager, WBSEDCL Authority, be directed to regenerate the bill for the period from July, 2013 to September, 2013 taking into consideration the last three months consumption recorded in the new meter which has been replaced on 20-11-2013 within 30 days from the date of this order.
The complainant do get award of Rs. 2,000/- as compensation for prolonged harassment and mental agony and also Rs. 1,000/- as litigation costs.
The O.P. no. 3, WBSEDCL Authority is directed to pay the entire amount of Rs. 3,000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order i.d., it shall carry an interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of this order.
The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( P. K. Chatterjee )
Member, C.D.R.F.,Howrah.