DATE OF FILING : 09-07-2013.
DATE OF S/R : 06-08-2013.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 30-09-2013.
Mr. Mehaboob mnallick,
S/O. Late Khaiek Mallick, Changail, Sanapara,P.S-. Uluberia, Howrah, Pin – 711308. ------------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT.
- Versus -
1. The Chairman, WBSEDCL,
Bidyut Bhawan, Block – BJ, Sector – II, P.S. Bidhannagar ( N ), Kolkata – 700091.
2. Zonal Manager,
WBSEDCL,
9, Old Post Office Street, P.S. Lalbazar,
Kolkata – 700001.
3. Divisional Engineer,
Uluberia, Banitabla, P.S. Uluberia,
Howrah – 711409.
4. AE & Station Manager,
Uluebria, Bazarpara, P.S. Uluberia,
Howrah,
PIN – 711316.---------------------------------------------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 was filed by the complainant U/S 12 of the C .P. Act, 1986 ( as
amended upto date ) against deficiency in service U/S 2(1)(g) of the said Act wherein the complainant has prayed for a direction to be given upon the O.Ps. for adjustment of the erratic bill sent to the complainant.
2. The brief facts of the case is that complainant, Mr. Mahaboob Mallick is a
bonafide consumer of O.P. no. 4 having consumer no. A113185, consuming energy through a domestic meter BM 32552 received the energy bill for the period Janunary,2011 & February, 2011 which as it seems very high in comparison to the electric bill received earlier. The complainant met with the officials of WBSEDCL Authority to mitigate the grievances followed by replacement of the existing defective meter by a new one which in turn replaced on 27-11-2011. The complainant paid the rectified energy bill for the period December,2010 to December,2012 as raised by the O.P. no. 4. In the mean time the complainant received another bill showing therein the correct consumption of unit with arrear and surcharge which he declined to pay and paid for relief before the Forum. Hence the case.
3. The o.ps. on the other hand in their written version contending interalia stated that
the existing defective meter has been changed by a new one on 27-11-2011 and the disputed bill has been regenerated as per order / instruction of the higher authority and the complainant paid the bill. But subsequently some dispute arises out regarding arrear energy bill together with late payment surcharge which duly been clarified by O.P. no. 4 vide his memo no. ULB/ Misc./57 dated 11-04-2013, but in spite of the payment of the bill raised some false and frivolous allegation in order to avoid payment of bill which is nothing but to harass the O.P. against which deficiency in service as pointed out does not hold good against the o.p and accordingly the case should be dismissed with exemplary 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 O.Ps.
raised the energy bill against consumption recorded in a defective meter installed in the complainant premises for the period Jan’11 and Feb’11.
6. The point of dispute is that that the complainant raised his grievances against
disputed bill through a defective meter which needs to rectify by the O.P. no. 4 in order to pay the electric bill in time by the complainant.
7. During scrutinizing it reveals that the O.P. no. 4 did not pay heed the grievances of
the complainant who made several representations before the O.P. no. 4 followed by personal visit at the office of the C.E. Consumer Relation Management Cell, WBSEDCL, who in turn informed vide his memo no. CRM/grievances/ KDG / Q-1/137 dated 05-11-2011 informed the Station in charge, Uluberia CCC, to take effective measure to mitigate grievances. The O.P. no. 4 subsequently replaced the old meter on 27-11-0211. But the interim phase of installation of lchallenged meter / checked meter is full of anomalies and to correct registering of the units. No acceptable ;argument is forthcoming on behalf of the O.P. no. 4 as to how the bill dated 28-02-2013 can be so exorbitant and how the subsequent arrear bills and late charges can be generous.
8. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the bill on the dated 28-02-2013
where dispute was brought knowledge to the O.P. no. 4 was outcome of faulty meter and required to be cancelled/ regenerated.
9. Moreover, the bill raised on the dated 28-02-2013 showing therein 86 units along
with arrear and late fine charges appears to us anomalous, ex-facie. There cannot be any alternative than to cancel / regenerated bill.
In the result, the complaint succeeds.
Both the points are accordingly disposed of.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 222 of 2013 ( HDF 22 of 2013 ) be allowed on contest with costs against o.ps.
The O.P. no. 4 be directed to remove all the anomalies in the energy bill sent to the complainant. That bill dated 28-02-2013 be cancelled and regenerated through regeneration system within 30 days from the date of this order for payment the same in due time.
The O.P. no. 4 is hereby directed to pay the complainant a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as compensation for his prolonged harassment and mental agony.
The complainant is further entitled to litigation costs of Rs. 500/- from the O.P. no. 4.
The entire amount of Rs. 2,500/- will be paid within 30 days from this order failure of which a penal interest @ 9% p.a. will be levied over the entire amount till realization.
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.
