This is a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 filed on behalf of the complainant Hindol Mukherjee wherein it is contended, interalia, to the effect that the complainant is the consumer under O.Ps in relation to Meter no T 2023256. The bills for that meter for the mother of January, to March,2013 have already been paid by the complainant in favour of the O.Ps.
It is also contended that the invoice being no. 414000067679 issued by O.P. no.1 on 20.02.2013 which indicates the previous reading date as on 12.12.2012 depicting the consumption unit as 149 KWH But the meter card bearing Sl no. 531953 shows 904 KWH on 31.01.2012 and thus the O.P. claimed a payment of Rs. 3810.00 per month for the month of April aand May, 2013 within due dates and it is also contended that a huge quantum of energy ie. 1024 KWH was consumed within the period from 12.12.2012 to 04.02.2013 . The complainant had paid bill amount for January and February, 2013 which is again a faux pas as the counter foil for the previous bill payment will speak that the complainant had paid the bill amount from January, to March, 2013.
It is further contended that if the meter reading from the concerned meter was made by the O.P. intime in that case the excess consumption charges should not have been demanded by the O.P. However, on the basis of the desire of the O.Ps. the complainant could not hand over all the payment receipt vouchers in original to the O.P. no.1 on 19,3,2013 as no written requirements was available from O.P. no1. When the O.P. inspite of several demands of the complainant did not rectify the bill in question, it is to be presumed that there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.ps. and for this reason the complainant is compelled to lodge this complaint against the O.Ps. claiming reliefs fully mentioned and described in the complaint.
The O.P. No.s 1 and 2 contested this case by filing written version and denied all material allegations of the complainant as alleged against the O.Ps It is specifically denied, interalia, in the written version to the effect that the bill for the month of January ,2013 to March, 2013 in relation to the then present reading of 149 KWH has already been paid by this complainant and the consumer applied for regeneration of the current bill which are accumulated in relation to units with proper tariff benefits The said meter reflects consumption of 1173 units, but the complainant paid the bill for the consumption of 149 units. Thus the O.Ps. are entitled to get bill of 1024 units(i.e. 1173 units -149 units) and after giving adjustment of 149 units and after giving said adjustment the 149 units have been deducted and/or adjusted with the said 1173 units. It is further contended that as the complainant paid the previous till, the O.Ps have no provision for regeneration after payment in present database SAP of the WBSEDCL. Though the O.Ps tried their level best to mitigate the grievances of the complainant but the complainant did not co-operate with O.Ps. in this respect. In the circumstances the O.Ps. submitted that as there was no deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps due to non co-operation of complainant the present case should be dismissed with cost
Upon the above averments both parties went on hearing with the following points:-
- Is the complainant entitled to get reliefs as sought for ?
- To what other relief or reliefs is the complainant entitled?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point No.s 1 and 2 :
Both the points are taken up together for consideration in discursion for the sake of convenient as they are interlinked and inter related
Admittedly, the consumption charge for 149 units has already been paid by the complainant in favour of the O.Ps. After scanning the documentary evidence on record we found materials to say that after adjustment of the said 149units for which the consumption charge has already been paid, the Ops are entitled to get the consumption charge on remaining 1024 unites ( 1173 minus 149 units). It is evident that as the Ops demanded the amount charges of 1024 units at a time, the excess charge was charged by the OP However, though the O.Ps. after accumulating and/or after re-generating prepared the bills with giving tariff facility, but as the said total consumption of 1173 is included with the abovementioned 149 units , the excess amount was also charged upon the complainant. So it is to be fit and proper if the O.Ps. are directed to re-generate the bills further after deducting of the said 149 units with giving tariff facility, we think it is to be fit & proper adjudication. In the circumstances, we are inclined to hold that the complainant has adduced sufficient evidence in this case for which he is entitled to get reasonable benefit .
Thus, the case succeeds.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
That the CC No 18/2013 under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 filed by the Hindol Mukherjee be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.Ps with cost of Rs 500.00 to be paid by the O.Ps. in favour of the complainant.
The O.Ps are hereby directed to re-generate the afresh bills with quarterly consumption commencing from June,2012 ending to May, 2013 comprising 1173 KWH minus 149 units and refix the same at the lowest quarterly consumption rate slab as per applicable in tariff Clause A(DM-U) in compliance with WBERC’s order dated 30.12.2011 within one month from this date and after having that bill with tariff facility the complainant is to pay the said consumption charges within the date to be specified in the said bills.
The O.Ps. are further directed to pay a sum of Rs 2000.00 as compensation in favour of the complainant for his harassment and mental agony & physical harassment.
If the O.Ps. do not comply with the said order within the specified time as mentioned above the complainant is to execute this order by filing a separate proceeding against the O.Ps as per provisions of law.
