DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MALDA, MALDA D.F.ORIGINAL CASE No.12/2007. Date of filing of the Case:06.02.2007 Complainant | Opposite Parties | Bijoy Kumar Choudhury, age 54 yrs. S/O. Late Jyotish Ch. Choudhury 14/15, Imambari Lane, Kalitala, P.S.English Bazar, P.O. & Dist. Malda. (W.B.) | 1 | W.B.S.E.Board (To be served upon Divisional Manager , W.B.S.E.B.) Rabindra Avenue, P.S. English Bazar, P.O. & Dist. Malda. | 2 | Circle Manager Malda (D) Circle W.B.S.E. Board Netajee Market Building, Rathbari, P.S. Englishbazar, P.O. & Dist. Malda. | 3 | Asst. Engineer, W.B.S.E. Board, Fullbari Sector, Sukanto More, P.S. Englishbazar, P.O. & Dist. Malda. | 4 | Station Manager W.B.S.E. Board Fullbari Group Electric Supply, Sukanto More, P.S. Englishbazar, P.O. & Dist. Malda. | 5 | W.B.S.E.Board (represented by Chairman) Bidyut Bhawan, 2nd floor Slat Lake, Kolkata – 700 091. |
Present: | 1. | Shri S.K. Chakraborty, President. | 2. | Smt. Sumana Das, Member. | 3. | Shri A.K. Sinha, Member. |
For the Petitioner: Shri Asit Baran Choudhury, Smt. Usha Choudhury, Advocates. For the O.Ps. Shri Salil Kr. Das, Advocate. Order No.07 dated 27.03.2007. This is an application u/s 12 of C.P. Act alleging therein that the petitioner is the consumer of Malda W.B.S.E.B. having Consumer No.F090781 and service connection No.2963 / D which is a domestic connection. Since installation the petitioner has been paying the bills regularly prepared by the O.P. on the basis of the reading of Meter bearing No.LL505418 and the bills are found run within Rs.250/- per month. The petitioner at his utter surprise has received bill in December 2006 amounting to Rs.86,449/- which according to this unbelieving high in comparison with the previous bills and this is the cause of dispute. Applications were submitted to O.P. No.4 on 12.12.2006 and 27.12.2006 and 27.12.2006 for clarification and for sending correct bill but no action was taken by the O.P. which has prompted the petitioner to institute the present complaint for relief as have been made out in the petition of complaint. O.P. No.1 to 5 jointly contest the case alleging therein that complainant has been asked to pay adjustment 13186 units for the period from September 2006 to Nov. 2006 amounting Rs.86,449/- which was calculated from the final reading of the meter replaced by new one on 30.5.2001 taking into consideration that the complaint should have paid 352 units per month i.e. 1056 unit per quarter since 20.08.1997 sofar the final reading of the meter being 37063 units shown in the meter on 30.05.2001, the date of replacement as per average calculation and has paid less charge of more than 700 units consumption per quarter. The O.Ps. therefore, deny the claim of the petitioner and pray for dismissal of the suits with a direction to the petitioner for payment of the bill. On pleading of both parties the following points arise for effective disposal of the case. 1. Whether the service of the O.Ps. suffer from any deficiency? 2. Whether the bill in question fictitious? 3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to get the relief as prayed for? DECISION WITH REASONS Point Nos. 1 , 2 & 3: All the points are taken up together for simultaneous disposal as they are interlinked. Now the primary question is about the burden of proof though not defined in the Indian Evident Act., is, however, used in two senses. It means – 1. The burden in establishing a case whether by preponderance (as in civil cases); and 2. The duty or necessity of introducing evidence either to establish such a case or to meet evidence sufficient to constitute rebuttal of a prima facie case proved by the other party. Burden of proof in the first sense depends in civil case on the state of the pleadings. Now let us see what are the averments made by either party in the respective pleadings. Specific allegation of the petitioner is that he is a bonafide consumer of W.B.S.E.B. having consumer No.F090781 and since installation of electric connection the petitioner used to pay the bill prepared by electricity department on the basis of the reading of the meter concern bearing No.LL505418 regularly which runs average per month Rs.250/- and has become astonished on receiving a bill for Rs.86449/- only for the period from September 2006 to November 2006. Against such contentions of the petitioner the O.Ps. have categorically denied about monthly consumption of such low units, which has prompted the O.Ps. to send the disputed bull showing consumption therein of 13186 units in addition to 1131 units stated to have been consumed by the petitioner for the period from September 2006 to November 2006 and these O.Ps. have claimed that the petitioner must pay for the units which has been mentioned in the final reading of the date of replacement on 30.5.2001. In such circumstances the O.Ps. pray for dismissal of the petition. Neither party has adduced any evidence and as such this Forum is to rely on the documents filed by both the parties. Petitioner has filed the disputed bill for three months amounting to Rs.86499/- for the units alleged to be the electricity duty for the aforesaid period. It further appears from the document dated 04.07.2003 issued by the petitioner and received by Fulbari Sector office W.B.S.EB. on the self same date clearly manifest that he made endevour to convenience the electricity office that there was sending of fictitious bill and at that time the W.B.S.E.B in its wisdom thought it wise not to enter into any confrontation with the petitioner which gives opportunity to this Forum that even on 04.07.2003 stand of the petitioner on this point proved true and this also manifest the pattern of consumption of electricity by the petitioner was not a matter of dispute. On perusal of the Xerox copy of the blue card kept in custody of O.Ps. apparently shows average in units consumed by the petitioner since 26.2.1990 and the meter reading Dated 17.5.1991 when the meter was found ‘stop’ the average meter reading did not vary. On some other subsequent occasion even meter reading when the same was found stop apparently manifest the true picture of consumption. This blue card also manifest replacement of meter on 30.05.2001 but even for the subsequent period the units consumed do not vary to such extent that may give rise to any short of adverse presumption about latches on the part of the petitioner and there is no allegation on the part of the O.Ps. that the unit consumed by the Petitioner for any subsequent period after 30.5.2001 is much less / excessive than which has been consumed by the petitioner for any period prior to replacement of the meter and this fact, in a converse way, reflects the trust worthy ness of the petitioner that he is in no way at fault relating to consumption of electrify. The above observation of this Forum negates the averments made in Para – 9 of the O.Ps. that from the “pattern of consumption of electricity …… before the replacement of the meter and had paid less charge of more than 700 units consumption per / qtr” finds no legs to stand on. In this connection the petitioner has taken assistance of W.B. Electricity Regulatory Commission (ESC) Regulation 2004 wherein it is laid down that if the license finds that the bill is erroneous, revised corrected bill should have been furnished to the present petitioner. Be it mention herein that at once it came to the notice of the meter reader on 17.5.1991 the meter was found stop. He could have brought it to the notice of Authority and the meter would have been replaced immediately thereafter, but no explanation appears nor any scrap of paper on the part of the O.Ps. what prevented them to changing the meter till 30.5.2001, the date of replacement of meter and it appears astonishing to note that change of meter on the part of O.ps. consumed a decade i.e. 17.5.1991 to 30.5.2001. It deserves to be mentioned herein that even when the meter was replaced on 30.5.2001 the allegation of consumption of excessive electric energy and any charge therefore has not been referred to the petitioner during the disputed period and all on a sudden the O.Ps. awakened from the deep sleep on receipt of remarks as per audit report and it also appears surprising to note what has prevented to O.Ps. to file a copy of audit report which could enlighten the Forum on what basis such audit report has been prepared. All this points are thus disposed of which negate the claim of the O.Ps. in part. But the petitioner shall have to pay the charges for consumption of 1131 unit actually consumed by him. Proper fees have been paid. Hence, ordered, that the Malda D.F. Case No.12/2007 is allowed on contest against the O.Ps. The petitioner do pay charges or 1131 unit within 30 days of receipt of a fresh bill of 1131 units and the O.Ps. do send such fresh bill within 15 days from date. Under peculiar circumstances of the case there will no order as to the cost. Let the copy of order be given to both parties free of cost. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- A.K. Sinha Sumana Das S.K. Chakraborty Member Member President D.C.D.R.F., Malda. D.C.D.R.F., Malda. D.C.D.R.F.,Malda. | 
