The complainant has filed this case U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the prayer directing the O.Ps. to prepare proper bill for the month of August, September and October, 2014, to declare that the bill are highly inflated bill, to pay compensation for loss, injury and negligency and to pay litigation cost to the complainant.
In brief, the case of the complainant is that the complainant is a domestic consumer of O.Ps. and the complainant paid the bills regularly, raised by the O.Ps. The electric meter of the complainant was defective and it was detected on 29.07.2013, which has been endorsed in the yellow card of the meter. O.P. had raised the bill on average basis and the complainant also paying the bills. O.Ps. raised bills for the month of August, 2014, September, 2014 and October, 2014 where chargeable unit mentioned as 1133 units and bill of Rs.2916/- per month for the said period to be paid. The complainant intimated the O.Ps. on 29.08.2014 for prepare proper bill, so that the complainant shall make payment. The complainant also informed the O.Ps. for defective meter and prayed for installation of new meter but the O.Ps. did not pay heed. Finding no way the complainant appeared before this Forum for getting relief.
O.P. No.2 contested the case by filing W.V., denying the allegations of the complainant, stating inter alia that the case is not maintainable, the O.Ps. have raised the correct bill which consumed by the complainant, it is fact that the meter in question is defective, the O.Ps. raised bills on average basis, the O.Ps. are ready to install new meter subject to payment of installation charge and O.Ps. have prayed for dismissal of the case.
O.P. No.1 did not appear and not contested this case. So, the case is heard ex-parte against O.P. No.1.
To establish his case the complainant has adduced memo of evidence and oral evidence, letter dated 29.08.2014 and submitted photocopies of electric bills and payment receipt including the disputed period bills.
In its defence the O.P. No.1 has filed W.V., memo of evidence and oral evidence in this case.
We carefully perused the complaint petition, photocopies of electric bills and payment receipt, memo of evidences and oral evidences, W.V. and considered the argument advanced by the parties.
DECISIONS WITH REASONS
On scrutiny of the documents and evidences it reveals that it is admitted fact that meter in question of the complainant was/ is defective and was not showing unit consumption as per yellow card after 30.04.2012, where last reading unit mentioned 003673 and on 29.07.2013 the meter reader found the meter stopped reading and then he endorsed in the yellow card that meter is defective. The complainant also admitted that O.Ps. raised average bills since the period of meter was defective and the complainant also paying the bills regularly without any protest. After receiving the bills for the month August, 2014 September, 2014 and October, 2014, where unit consumption shown as 1133 unit and average bill amount mentioned of Rs.2916/- per month, the complainant protest against the high amount bill to the O.Ps. with written intimation on 29.08.2014 with a prayer for correction of the bill and replaced the new meter in place of defective meter.
It is evident from the yellow card that where the meter in question stopped reading of unit and O.Ps. raised the bills on average basis the complainant paid the bills regularly till July, 2014 without any protest. It is the duty of a consumer when he received the average bill, should intimate the matter with written intimation to the O.ps. for solution of the problem but the complainant did not do so. He approached the O.Ps. for correction of bill and replaced the new meter when he received the high amount bill i.e. after two years above. On the other hand the O.Ps. were negligent for not taking meter reading on regular process. Moreover they were also negligent for not replacing the new meter in place of defective meter, where meter reader specifically mentioned the meter is defective and the meter certainly was within the knowledge of the O.Ps., but the O.Ps. did not performed their duties till date.
In view of the discussions hereinbefore we are of opinion that the complainant do get an order and also entitled to litigation cost.
Fees paid is correct.
Hence, it is
ORDERED,
That the complaint case is allowed in part on contest against the O.P. No.1 and ex-parte against O.P. No.2.
The O.Ps. are directed to prepare fresh electric bills for the month of August, 2014, September, 2014 and October, 2014 i.e. for consumption period May, 2014 to July, 2014 on average basis upon the calculation of unit consumption for the period May, 2011 to July, 2011 i.e. when the meter in question was in order and send the bill to the complainant for payment, Pay of Rs.1000/- as litigation cost and further directed to replace a new electric meter in place of defective meter in question within one month from this day, failing which the complainant is at liberty to put this order in execution as per law.
Copy of this order be supplied to each parties free of cost.
