This case has been filed U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant, Smt. Protiva Sarkar.

The complainant’s case in short is that her electric meter was not working properly since March, 2016.  The meter was reading fast and as a result heavy amount of bill had been issued in the name of the complainant.  Finding no other alternative the complainant wrote a letter to the opposite party on 8.3.2016 requesting them to replace the defective meter.  But they neither showed interest nor responded. The opposite party issued adjusted bill in the name of the complainant and accordingly the complainant paid the bill till date.  The complainant consumed electricity average 443 units in three months.  Suddenly the complainant received an excessive bill on 7.2.2018 amounting to Rs.26,163/-. Though the complainant has not any appliances like Geyser/Washing machine/Air Conditioner/Toaster etc.  The opposite party threatened the complainant, saying that, if she will not pay the bill amount within 19.2.2018, the electric service connection would be disconnected.

The complainant personally visited the office of the opposite party several times for replacement of the defective meter.  But no fruitful result comes out.  Instead of that the opposite party sent heavy bill amount which is much higher than her usual bill amount.  The complainant will suffer irreparable loss and injury if the opposite party disconnects the electricity.  The complainant is unable to pay the huge amount of bill as she suffered various complications since the death of her husband.  She has been living her father’s house along with her son.  She has no source of income.  In this situation she has compelled to file this case before this Forum with a prayer to direct the opposite party to amend the excessive bill amount, not to disconnect the electric connection, to replace the defective meter, to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards mental pain and agony and to pay Rs.5000/- towards litigation cost.

The opposite parties contested the case by filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegations as leveled against them.  These opposite parties submit that the meter reader went to the premises on10.8.2016 and found that the premises as “Door Locked”.  So, door locked bill was generated 408 units against bill period August, 2016 to October, 2016 and then after time i.e. periodically the meter reader went to the premises on 18.11.2016, 14.2.2017, 16.5.2017, 14.8.2017 and 8.11.2017 respectively but the consumer/petitioner did not give any access to her meter.  So, the opposite party No.1 had been no other way but to raise door locked bill for 515 units, 414 units, 531 units, 430 units & 443 units against respective quarters.  Moreover,  several times the WBSEDCL personnel  asked the petitioner to give ‘access’ or permission to show the meter but the petitioner/consumer denied everything.   It cannot be affirmed that the petitioner had/has not been the appliances like Geyser/Washing Machine, AC Machine and Toaster etc. without having any verification of the premises.  But due to non-giving any access to the opposite parties it could not be possible and lastly on 7.2.2017 the meter reader somehow managed to take the meter reading and found that the factual position of the alleged meter and recorded the actual units as 15187 KWH and 2745 units bill was generated for which the amount is Rs.26,163/- and bill raised for the month of February to April, 2018 but it is absolutely false that the opposite parties threatened the petitioner for non-payment of said bill, the line will be disconnected within 19.2.2018.  But according to norms of WBSEDCL, the notice to be served to the consumer of defaulted payment.  Hence, the case.

 Both sides filed evidence on affidavit and written notes of argument which are taken into consideration for passing final order.

ISSUES/POINTS   FOR   CONSIDERATION

1). Whether the Complainant Smt. Protiva Sarkar is a ‘Consumer’ of the opposite party?

2).Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?

3).Whether the O.Ps carried on unfair trade practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards the Complainant?

4).Whether the complainant proved his case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to him?

DECISION WITH REASONS

 In the light of discussions here in above we find that the issues/points should be decided based on the above perspectives.

(1).Whether the complainant Protiva Sarkar a ‘Consumer’ of the opposite party?

  From the materials on record it is transparent that the Complainant is a “Consumer” as provided by the spirit of section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. As the complainant herein is enjoying electricity supplied by the OP Company and it is admitted by the OP Company being the service provider.

(2).Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?

  Both the complainant and opposite party are residents/carrying on business within the district of Hooghly. The complaint valued within Rs.20,00,000/- limit of this Forum. So, this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case.   

 (3).Whether the opposite party carried on Unfair Trade Practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards the Complainant?

   The opposite party being the largest Electric Supply Company throughout the state having a  lot of offices, power stations, substations and power generating stations decorated with a lot of expert hands and running its business with goodwill for a long period and providing/rendering service for development of society as well as implementing a lot of Govt. programs. So the role of OP Company for the development of the society is unquestionable.

The OP herein is the Station Manager of an office of the largest electric supply company throughout the State of W.B. The Company WBSEDCL running its business throughout the state except territorial jurisdiction of Kolkata Corporation. The OP Company is providing power in the rural areas in different projects for a long period. That is why the consumers in the rural areas are highly grateful to the Company. While providing powers throughout the state it also suffers from many discrepancies. Like not sending/ preparing bills in due time or sending bills for a period when the powers are discontinued and not taking reading regularly as a result the consumers suffer from paying accumulated units at a higher rate. As a consequence the consumers suffer a lot and make their grievances for remedy.

 The case of the complainant is that the electric meter being No. 45520804 has not been working properly since March, 2016 as the meter was reading fact so heavy amount of bill issued. So the complainant lodged a complaint on 08.03.2016 narrating all the facts and requested the opposite party no.1 to replace the said meter but the opposite party did not pay heed. It is further assailed that the opposite party neither visited for checking the meter but sent an adjusted bill to the complainant. The complainant consumed electricity average 443 units in three months.  Suddenly the complainant received an excessive bill on 7.2.2018 amounting to Rs.26,163/-. Though the complainant has not any appliances like Geyser/Washing machine/Air Conditioner/Toaster etc.  The complainant repeatedly requested the opposite party to replace the defective meter. Thereafter the complainant received another excessive bill dated 05.05.2018 amounting to Rs.28964.12 for the month of May -2018 to July -2018 but the said bill showed the consumption as 542 units for three months.  Getting no reliefs from the opposite party the complainant filed the instant complaint before this Forum praying directions as incorporated in the prayer portion of the complaint petition. 

These opposite parties denied the allegations leveled against them and averred that the meter reader went to the premises on10.8.2016 and found that the premises as “Door Locked”.  So, door locked bill was generated 408 units against bill period August, 2016 to October, 2016 and then after time i.e. periodically the meter reader went to the premises on 18.11.2016, 14.2.2017, 16.5.2017, 14.8.2017 and 8.11.2017 respectively but the consumer/petitioner did not give any access to her meter.  So, the opposite party No.1 had been no other way but to raise door locked bill for 515 units, 414 units, 531 units, 430 units & 443 units against respective quarters. Moreover, several times the WBSEDCL personnel  asked the petitioner to give ‘access’ or permission to show the meter but the petitioner/consumer denied everything.  It cannot be affirmed that the petitioner had/has not been the appliances like Geyser/Washing Machine, AC Machine and Toaster etc. without having any verification of the premises.  But due to non-giving any access to the opposite parties it could not be possible and lastly on 7.2.2017 the meter reader somehow managed to take the meter reading and found that the factual position of the alleged meter and recorded the actual units as 15187 KWH and 2745 units bill was generated for which the amount is Rs.26,163/- and bill raised for the month of February to April, 2018 but it is absolutely false that the opposite parties threatened the petitioner for non-payment of said bill, the line will be disconnected within 19.2.2018.

After hearing the argument of the parties it appears that a huge bill amounting to Rs.25, 304/- has been generated on 07.02.2018 for the period from 08.11.2017 to 07.02.2018 and the consumed unit is 2745 for which the complainant being an widow living in her father house alongwith her only became perplexed. The complainant filed the complaint dated 08.03.2016 before the opposite party in which she assailed that her electric meter is not functioning properly as a result a huge amount of bill has been generated, so she  prayed to check the meter and to replace the same if needed. But the opposite party did not pay any heed for which the complainant is under liability to pay bill of huge accumulated units. The opposite party in his written version admitted that the meter reader went to the premises on10.8.2016 and found that the premises as “Door Locked”. So, door locked bill was generated 408 units against bill period August, 2016 to October, 2016 and then after time i.e. periodically the meter reader went to the premises on 18.11.2016, 14.2.2017, 16.5.2017, 14.8.2017 and 8.11.2017 respectively but the consumer/petitioner did not give any access to her meter.  So, the opposite party No.1 had been no other way but to raise door locked bill for 515 units, 414 units, 531 units, 430 units & 443 units against respective quarters. It is also transparent from the bills dated 23.11.2016 in which units consumed 515 for the period 10.08.2016 to 18.11.2016, the bills dated 18.02.2017 in which units consumed 414 for the period 18.11.2016 to 14.02.2017, the bills dated 18.05.2017 in which units consumed 531 for the period 14.02.2017 to 10.05.2017, the bills dated 19.08.2017 in which units consumed 430 for the period 10.05.2017 to 14.08.2017, the bills dated 18.11.2017 in which units consumed 443 for the period 14.08.2017 to 08.11.2017 & the bills dated 07.02.2018 in which units consumed 2745 for the period 08.11.2017 to 07.02.2018 . So it is clear that the accumulation of units took place as the opposite party failed to take meter reading as well as generated bills in time. The complainant vide its letter dated 08.03.2016 complained to check the meter or to replace the same if it is found defective but the opposite party failed to take appropriate steps but evade their responsibility either  door locked or the complainant not permitted to enter to check the meter.  Then how the opposite party on 07.02.2018 took the reading quantified to 2745 units and generated a huge bill at a time. There is no doubt that the opposite party took the actual reading on 07.02.2018 and the bill is generated in accurate. But it is transparent that the opposite party failed to check the meter in regular interval and generate average bill for which the consumer compelled to pay accumulated bills at a time at higher rate. So it is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party for which the complaint petition is deserved to be allowed with cost. The poor consumer are the of prey of deficiency of service of the opposite party corporation for which they suffered a lot.     

 So this Forum is the considered opinion to allow the prayer of the complainant in part with cost.

4). Whether the complainant proved his case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to him?

  The discussion made herein before, we have no hesitation to come in a conclusion that the complainant abled to prove her case. The Opposite Party is under liability to accept the outstanding bills as per the order of this Forum.

Hence it is ordered that the Complaint Case No.17/2018 be and the same is allowed in part on contest against the opposite party with a litigation cost of Rs.6000/-.

The opposite party is directed to rectify the bill dated 07.02.2018 for the period from 08.11.2017 to 07.02.2018 amounting to Rs.25,304.00  by average bills of preceding quarter bill dated 18.11.2017 &  succeeding quarter of after the bill dated 07.02.2018 i.e. the bill dated 05.05.2018 for the period from 07.02.2018 to 05.05.2018 .The current bills are to be prepared in accordance with the reading as reflected in the meter . The opposite party should take appropriate steps so that the consumer should not meet such a liability to pay bills of huge accumulated units and disconnection for nonpayment of such bills. The opposite party is also directed to replace the meter if it is found defective immediately.

No other reliefs are awarded to the complainant.

Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their Ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/sent by ordinary post forthwith, for information & necessary action.