IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No.CC 46/2015.
Date of Filing: 01.04.2015. Date of Final Order: 28.07.2017.
Complainant: 1.Sri Dhrubajyoti Dutta, 2. Sri Ranabir Dutta, Sons of Late Hirendra Nath Dutta,
No.5, Gurucharan Bose Lane, (1st Floor), P.O. Khagra, P.S. Berhampore,
Dist. Murshidabad. Pin 742103.
-Vs-
Opposite Party: The Station Manager, West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited,
Khagra Customer Care center, P.O. Khagra, P.S. Berhampore, Dist. Murshidabad.
Present: Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya …………………. President.
Smt. Chandrima Chakraborty ……………………..Member.
FINAL ORDER
Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya, Presiding Member.
The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying for sending a fresh bill taking off the bill dt. 24.2.15 for the period from 1/15 to 3/15 and for compensation of Rs.40, 000/- for harassment and Rs.45, 000/- for mental pain and agony.
The complainant’s case, in brief, is that the complainants’ father has a domestic connection bearing Consumer No.313022229 Meter No. 2762301 in his own 3 storyed building 33, Natunpara Berhampore Town and after his death the complainants are possessing the building and electricity as his legal heir. Since last one year the consumption of electricity was 160/170 unit in an average in that meter. As these building were dilapidated, repairing work was going on and they used to reside at 5, Gurucharan Bose Lane. Suddenly, the OP party in the first part of January, 2015 came to their old building and took reading and told that the reading was 29753 units against meter no. 109371.
The complainant at once pointed out that no such meter was installed, their meter No. is 2762301. The bill for 29753 units in respect of the meter No. 109371 is false, fictitious and has no basis. The complainant used the meter No. 2762301 and no such consumption has been shown in that meter. After several meet on 19.02.15 the OP replaced meter No. 2762301 and installed meter No. 2822064 and tagged meter card with it. Again after several requests the OP handed over a computerized bill against meter No. 2762301 for 29752 units amounting to Rs.2, 01,492.48. Hearing the same the complainant No. 1 who was heart patient became permanently bed-ridden. Having no result in correcting the bill inspite of several requests, the complainants found no other alternative but to file the instant complaint. Hence, the instant complainant case.
The written version filed by the OP-WBSEDCL, in brief, is that since 2007 the meter reader was unable to take the meter reading because the complainants or their family members gave excuses that the key of the meter room is not in their custody but after few days the petitioners politely used to come before the electricity office and verbally stated the meter reading. Believing the statement of the complainants this Opposite Party noted the meter reading in the meter reading card with the noting “Self declaration” . This practice has been running since 09-09-2007 to 05-01-2015. On 05.01.15 meter reading was taken in presence of the complainants with their signature and the reading was 29753. The bill has been sent for 21868 units deducting the previous reading as 7885 units. On 19.2.15 inspection was held by technical person and new meter was installed on that date. There are number of electrical points including TV, Refrigerators and other electrical gadgets. The wiring system of the house is damaged and twisted. In the inspection report the petitioners put his signature. The connected load was .42 KVA but the complainants illegally extended the load without prior permission of the WBSEDCL. The load was found to be 2.506 KVA at the time of inspection. The reading of the meter was taken in the presence of the petitioner and that meter reading is correct one. The Opposite Party is entitled to get the amount against the consumed units of 29753 units. Hence, the instant written version.
Considering the pleadings of both parties the following points have been raised for the disposal of the case.
Points for Decision
- Whether the petition is maintainable in its present form and in law?
- Whether the petition is barred by law of limitation?
- Whether the complainant has any cause of action to file the present case?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for?
- To what other relief/reliefs the complainant is entitled to get?
Decision with Reasons
Point Nos. 1 to 5.
All the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience.
The instant complaint is for sending a fresh bill taking off the bill dt. 24.2.15 for the period from 1/15 to 3/15 and for compensation of Rs.40, 000/- for harassment and Rs.45, 000/- for mental pain and agony.
The complainant’s main case is that the bill for 29753 units in respect of meter No. 109371 is false, fictitious and has no basis. After several meets the OP replaced meter No. 2762301 and installed meter No. 2822064 and tagged meter card with it. Again, after several request the OP handed a computerized bill against meter No. 2762301 for 29753 units amounting to Rs.2, 01,492.48.
On the other hand the OP’s case is that on 5.01.15 meter reading was taken in presence of the complainant with their signature and the reading was 29753. The bill has been sent for 21868 units deducting previous reading as 7885 units. On 19.2.15 inspection was held by technical person and new meter was installed on that date. There are number of electrical points including TV, Refrigerators and other electrical gadgets. The wiring system of the house is damaged and twisted. In the inspection report the petitioners put his signature. The connected load was .42 KVA but the complainants illegally extended the load without prior permission of the WBSEDCL. The load was found to be 2.506 KVA at the time of inspection. The reading of the meter was taken in the presence of the petitioner and that meter reading is correct one.
To prove the case, the complainant has not adduced any evidence on affidavit inspite of giving sufficient opportunities but has filed Xerox copies of relevant documents in support of their case.
Where the Ld. Lawyer for the complainants has contested the case to the heel during hearing argument against the OP-WBSEDCL.
Admittedly, the disputed meter was in the name of the deceased father of the complainants in a three storied old dilapidated house.
From the documents filed by the complainant as well as from the documents filed by the OP it is clear that the OP-WBSEDCL would not take reading regularly where final reading was taken on 5.01.15 as 29753.
The OP’s case is that the above reading on 5.1.15 as 29753 units is for the period since 2007.
Further case of the OP-WBSEDCL is that the OP has received payments of bill upto the last reading of 7885 units and thus claimed for (29753 – 7885) = 21868 units for the period from 1/15 to 3/15.
Considering the above discussions we can safely decide for established fact as to irregular reading that the complainant is entitled to get slab benefit.
Further, admitted position is that the old meter has been replaced by OP-WBSEDCL.
Admittedly, the impugned old meter number in the name of deceased Hirendra Nath Datta , father of the complainant is 2762301.
From the documents filed by the OP as to installation of new meter No. L-2822064 replacing old meter No. 109371 and final reading of the old meter has been found as 29753 units.
The complainant’s case is that the meter No.109371 was never installed. The meter reading of the disputed bill is 29753 units against meter No.109371 but no such meter was ever installed.
From the yellow card tagged with the new meter No. 2822064 filed by the complainant and the document filed by the OP showing installation of new meter replacing old one and final meter reading it appears that the old meter number is 109371.
In this regard the ld. lawyer for the OP-WBSEDCL has advanced argument that the service connection has been mentioned in both the documents is same and the same is 313022229.
He has also argued that in this case there is no dispute regarding availability of any other old meter in the same premises.
In this regard he has advanced argument that aforesaid old meter No.109371 is nothing but clerical mistake. He has also argued that the same is to be ignored as the service connection of the impugned bill in respect of the old meter both admitted and disputed wrongly written meter number is same.
In the impugned bill dt. 24.2.2015 as per present reading on 05.01.2015 for the period from January 15 to March 15 for Rs.2, 01,492/- the meter no. has been mentioned as 2762301.
From the document relating to replacing filed by the OP-WBSEDCL it appears that old meter replaced on 19.2.15 due to company’s interest and final reading found 29753 units.
From this it is clear that old meter was not defective, the same was replaced due to company’s interest.
There is no evidence as well as any complaint case to the effect that the impugned old meter is defective.
The complainant’s main case is that the alleged bill dt. 24.2.15 on the basis of the reading as 29753 is false and baseless.
Thus, the complainant has simply challenged the reading as 29753.
It is established that the OP-WBSEDCL would not take meter reading of the impugned meter of this case bearing No. 2762301 regularly and for that we have already held that the complainant is entitled to get slab benefit.
From the impugned bill dt. 24.2.2015 it appears that the present meter reading as on 5.01.15 and previous meter reading of Meter No. 2762301 is 29753 units and 7885 units respectively and the bill has been made claiming (29753 – 7885) = 21868 unit. for Rs.201492/-.
The service connection No. of the meter of this case mentioned in the yellow card after replacement and the impugned bill and the document filed by the OP relating to installation after replacement is as same 313022229 and there being no case of any other old meter other than the old meter No. 2762301 we can safely conclude that the meter No. mentioned in the yellow card filed by complaint and document at the time of replacement filed by OP as 109371 was written wrongly or in other words the complainant has failed to establish that there was another old meter other than the old meter No. 2762301.
In this case the complainant has challenged the meter reading of the impugned bill dated 24.2.15 for 29753 units against meter No. 109371 which was never installed as fictitious and baseless.
In this regard the ld. lawyer for the OP-WBSEDCL has advanced argument that installation of new meter replacing the old meter and reading of the old meter was taken in presence of the complainant who put signature in the said inspection report.
During hearing argument the ld. lawyer for the complainant has challenged the signature.
The alleged signature of the complainant, the aforesaid report filed by the OP does not tally with the signature of the complainant in the complaint petition.
Further from the receipt filed by the complaint it appears that the complainant paid Rs.870/- against the bill for the period from October 14 to December 14 and from the copy of this particular bill filed by the complainant appears that previous reading was 7725 and present reading on 10.10.2014 was 7885.
From the available document it appears that after reading on 10.10.2014 last disputed reading on 5.01.2015 was 29753.
From the disputed bill dt. 24.2.15 , it appears that present reading is on 05.01.2015 as 29753 and previous reading on 10.10.2014 as 7885 but no such yellow card filed from either side showing entries of those readings.
From the document filed by the OP relating to installation of new meter replacing the old meter and from Xerox copy of only yellow card filed by the complainant it appears that the old meter was replaced and installed new meter on 19.2.15 and final reading is without noting the date of reading in the yellow card and in the report filed by the OP it is found that on 19.2.15 final reading was found 29753.
As per disputed bill dt. 24.2.15 the reading was taken on 01.01.2015 as 29753 units.
If that be so then how the reading for the period from 05.01.2015 to 19.02.15 would be zero. This raises serious doubt as to the actual reading as 29753.
Wherefrom the previous bill dt. 27.10.14 for the period from October, 14 to December’14, it appears that present reading on 10.10.14 was 7885 units and previous reading on 03.07.14 was 7225 units.
The above previous bill is just before the disputed bill and the previous bill was paid up and to establish the same complainant has filed money receipt to that effect.
From the above previous bill as well as money receipt it appears that the consumption of electricity was for 660 units i.e for three months i.e. 220 units per month.
Here OP’s case is that since 2007 the OP could not take meter reading for the executes given by the complainant that the key of the meter room is not in their custody and on the basis of verbal statement of the complainant as to the meter reading, the OP Company used to prepare bill on the basis of self-declaration and this practice was continuing since 09.09.2007 to 05.01.2015.
On the other hand the complainant’s case is that the bill in question of the old dilapidated three storied building where repairing work was going on and for that the complainant used to reside at 5,No. Gurucharan Bose Lane during repairing period. Since last one year bills containing average 160/167 units were sent by the WB-WBSEDCL.
Present reading as to 29735 on 5.01.15 has not been categorically taken on the basis of actual meter reading by the OP-WBSEDCL.
At the same time the complainant has also not filed the previous documents as to payment of bills since 2007 to 2015.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that payment of electric bill for the aforesaid old building was continuing on average basis.
That being so, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we have no other alternative but to come to the conclusion that the complainant cannot ignore the liability as to payment of the disputed bill entirely and for that the complainant would get slab benefit on average basis as revealed in this regard.
On the basis of above discussions we find all the points are disposed of in favour of the complainant in part and as such the complainant will get benefit of making payment of the fresh bill to be furnished by the OP-WBSEDCL giving slab benefits and also the average consumption during alleged period since 09.09.2007 to 5.01.15 considering last paid up bill for the period from October 2014 to December 2014 for 660 units and also giving the opportunity to the complainant to make payment of the said bills by equal installments of Rs.2,000/- per month along with the current bills.
Hence,
Ordered
that the Consumer Complaint No. 46/2015 be and the same is hereby allowed on contest in part.
The complainant will get benefit of making payment of the fresh bill to be furnished by the OP-WBSEDCL giving slab benefits and also the average consumption during alleged period since 09.09.2007 to 5.01.15 considering last paid up bill for the period from October 2014 to December 2014 for 660 units and also giving the opportunity to the complainant to make payment of the said bills by equal installments of Rs.2, 000/- per month along with the current bills.
The OP is directed to issue fresh bill giving slab benefits from 09.09.2007 to 05.01.2015 on the basis of average rate of consumption revealed from the last paid up bill for the period from October, 2014 to December, 2014 for 660 units ie. 220 units per month, adjusting the payment already received by the OP during that period.
The OP is to issue fresh bill within 60 days from the date of this order, failing which the OP is to pay fine @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.
