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

CASE No.  CC /34/2015.

 Date of Filing:   03.03.2015.                                           Date of Final Order: 28.06.2016.

Complainant: Asidullah Sk., S/O Late Chinibas Sk. Vill. Ramchandrapur,

                        Vill.& P.O. Islampur, Dist. Murshidabad. Pin 742304.

-Vs-

Opposite Party: The Station Manager, WBSEDCL, Chak Islampur Customer Care Centre,

                         Vill.& P.O. & P.S. Islampur, Dist. Murshidabad. Pin-742304.

                       Present:  Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya   ………………….President.                                 

                                         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 modification of outstanding bill amount for the month of September, 2014 to November, 2014.

The complainant’s case, in brief, is that the complainant Asidullah Sk is a consumer of the OP/station manager, Chak Islampur CCC, WBSEDCL, bearing Consumer I.d. No. 312223740. The complainant used to pay the bills regularly such as, he paid Rs.215/-for the month of April, 2014 to June, 2014 as well as paid Rs.65/- for the month of July, 2014 to August  2014 within 1^st due date. But he received the bill dt. 18.11.2014 for the month of September 2014 to November 2014 with an amount of Rs.13, 360/- against the total 1694 units. Afterwards, he again received abill dt. 21.10.2014 for the month of September, 2014 to November, 2014 with amount of Rs.3356 against the total 754 units. Then the complainant filed grievances before the Assistant Director, CA&FBP, the complainant to this Forum for proper redress with a prayer for regeneration of outstanding bill for the month of September, 2014 to November, 2014 along with Rs.2000/- a compensation for mental agony and harassment by the OP.

On the other hand, the OP 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 complaint and deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The OP stated that the complainant’s meter reading as on 22.01.2013 was 149 units and reading as on 18.11.2014 was 2022 units, but the OP claimed only 290 units for that period, which was duly paid by the complaint also. So, the OP sent a bill for the month of September, 2014 to November, 2014 where he claimed the due amount but the complainant did not pay the amount. According to the OP as the meter is in running condition, so the OP is entitled to get the bill amount. The OP further stated that the complainant is a defaulter, as because he did not pay the bill for the month of December, 2014 to May, 2015. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and he prayed for dismissal of the case.

The only point for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OP or not and or whether there complainant is entitled to get any relief or not.

                                                      Decision with Reasons.

Both the parties filed some relevant documents in support of their argument.

Perused the record, we observed that the meter reading dates and units in the yellow cared are not same with the meter reading dates and units of those bill issued by the OP to the complainant which is not expected. According to procedure bill will be prepared on the basis of meter reading units, so there will be similarity on the date and units in the meter as well as bill. For example, the yellow card shows 187 units on 02.07.2014 but the same units was shown in the bill for the month of July, 2014 to August, 2014 both on 19.04.2014 and 16.06.2014 as previous reading and present reading. Simultaneously, another two reading dates as 14.10.2014 and 08.11.2014 were not found in any bills submitted by the complaint and /or the OP. This irregularities or mis-match is a clear example of negligence and d efficiency in service on the part of the OP.

After scrutinizing the disputed bill for the month of September, 2014 to November, 2014, we observed that there is one note “Estimated/Average bill was raised due to wrongly noted mater defective meter, but it is actually running meter”. Though here the OP disclosed or confessed that wrongly noted that the said meter is defective meter, yet the OP cannot avoid the allegation of negligence or deficiency in service on his part, for which the complainant suffered a lot.

The complainant’s main allegation is on the sudden hike of the units and amount i.e. for July, 2014 is only Rs.65/- and for September, 2014 to November, 2014 is Rs.13, 360/- quite justified. Side by side the complaint have to realize that Rs.65/- was against 0 units consumption which is absurd and which is evident that the meter reading was not correct At present when correct meter reading is shown in the meter, so the complainant should pay the charge of the consumed units.

On the other hand, the OP have to realize the problem for the complaint to pay that huge amount at a time is quite impossible. Probably, the OP knows that. So, in the written version as well as at the time of argument the OP allowed giving 10 installments  and the slab benefit to the complainant for easy payment.

On the basis of the above discussions and material on record, we are of the view that the complainant is entitled to get the disputed bill  corrected and a fresh bill be prepared on the basis of average units consumption giving slab benefit along with installments facility deduction the amount paid for preparation of fresh bill for the period from billing months of 22.01.2013 to November 2014 as per above basis of the OP is to consider the last reading as 2171 as per bill dated 18.11.2014 and deducted 149 units already paid and then to give slab benefit as well as benefit to pay the dues to 10 installment on the basis of the average for the above period.

Hence,

                                                                         Ordered

that the Consumer Complaint No. 34/2015 be and the same is disposed of on contest as per terms as under:-

1. OP to prepare a fresh bill within 15 days from the date of this order taking the reading 149 (22.01.2013) as initial reading and 2272 (20.04.2015) as final reading as consumption for 27 months giving slab benefits.
2. Amount which the complainant deposited during the period 22.01.2013 to 20.04.2015 is to be deducted from the total amount so arrived in the calculation in (i)
3. Complainant is to pay his due amount in 10 monthly installments as per due dates mentioned by the OP .
4. Complainant is also directed to go on depositing the current bills as per dates mentioned in the bill.
5. In the default of any installment the OP is at liberty to disconnect the service line of the complainant.
6. In default of preparing the fresh bill as per (i) the OP is to pay Rs.50/- as fine for each days 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                                                             President