:    J U D G M E N T    :

Salil Kumar Dutta, an advocate practising at Krishnagar Judges’ Court filed this application under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 The facts of the case to put in a nutshell, are as below:- 

The complainant has an electric service connection No. 300392923 since 23.02.2013.  A yellow card is monitored by the OP to record the unit consumption of the complainant.  The yellow card / meter card was monitored by the official of the OP on physical verification of the meter reading at an interval.  From the meter card we find the following date and reading:

During the period from June, 2013 to August, 2013 total unit consumption was written 1247 and there was a demand of Rs. 9772/- by the OP which is made on the basis of incorrect calculation of the meter.  The complainant wrote a letter that the amount of Rs. 9772/- charged bill should be rectified by the OP.    The OP thereafter neglected to provide subsequent bills and naturally a legal notice was sent by the complainant to the OP on 17.06.14.  It was duly received but no relief was granted by the OP.  On 11.07.14 the wife of complainant went to the office of the OP and requested the OP to look into the matter.  She was returned out from the office of the OP by using abusive language. 

The complainant is anxious and brought the step to be taken by the OP.  The bill from June, 2013 to August, 2013 was not rectified.  The cause of action arose on 17.09.13 when the disputed bill was repaired and given to the complainant.  The cause of action will continue day by day. 

Hence, the complainant prays for providing electric bill as per norms of the Electricity Act from June, 2013 till date.  There is also another prayer for regeneration of the fresh bill by the OP for the period from July, 2013 to August, 2013 by mentioning actual consumption of unit.  Compensation of Rs. 50,000/- has been prayed along with cost.

The OP has contested the case by filing a written statement.

 The sum and substance of the written version is stated below:-

The complaint is not maintainable according to law and it is misconceived, manufactured and harassing and the complainant is not entitled to get any decree.  The complainant has to prove his case.  It is absolutely false to say that the wife of the complainant was misbehaved by the OP on 11.07.14.  The complainant did not pay as per meter reading shown in the above tables.  The complainant did not pay Rs. 3060.58 from June, 2014 to January, 2015.   There was no disputed bill as the bill was raised as per consumption of the complainant.  The complainant should be sought relief before the Ombudsman of W.B.S.E.D.C.L.

POINTS FOR DECISION

1. Point No. 1:   Is the complainant a consumer?
2. Point No. 2:   Was there any deficiency in service on the part of the OP?
3. Point No. 3:   What relief the complainant is entitled to get?

REASOND DECISIONS

            For the purpose of brevity and convenience all the points are taken up together for discussion.

Interrogatories of PW 1 was filed on 02.06.15 on the basis of the examination-in-chief of PW 1 filed on 11.05.15. Reply of the interrogatories filed by the complainant on 7^th July, 2015 was not signed by the complainant. 

The complainant has denied in the reply of interrogatories that no spot bill was drawn but during the argument we find that spot bill was presented before us.

            We have meticulously gone through the documents placed before us including the spot bill.

            We have meticulously gone through the order argument filed by the OP on 23.11.15.

            It has been specifically argued that the complaint should have been lodged before the Ombudsman of the electricity department.  At page 3 of the written argument it has been also mentioned that it is an inspector who inspected the report.  The OP demanded Rs. 9,772/- against a bill but the complainant did not pay the amount.  The complainant also did not pay Rs. 1,104/- as per bill drawn on the basis of the unit of actual consumption. 

            During argument Ld. Advocate for the OP has taken us to 1997 (1) CHN page 50 wherein a case of bill dispute the special statutory remedy was indicated by the Hon'ble Court reported as CESC Limited Vs. Shri N.M. Banka & Ors. The Hon'ble Court has held the following:-

            “In case of dispute or difference about the correctness of the meter or the correctness of the bill, the consumer may apply to the Electrical Inspector.  The writ petitioner did not avail of the statutory remedy provided by s. 26(4) and 26(6) but approached the court for interim relief and by this process managed to get supply of electricity though there was huge outstanding default.  It was not proper for the court to direct CESC to supply electricity to a defaulter indefinitely by interim orders.  Specific statutory remedy provided by the Indian Electricity Act to the consumer should not have been allowed to be bypassed.

     The consumer should have approached the Electrical Inspector straightway if he was aggrieved by the bills.  The court should have declined to intervene when the consumer approached the court.  The court should have directed the consumer to avail of the statutory remedy.”

            Ld. Advocate for the complainant Sri Subhasis Roy has taken us to the following case laws:-

1. 2014 (4) CPR 98 (NC)
2. 2014 (1) CPR 242 (NC)
3. 2014 (3) CPR 690 (NC)

            Let us briefly note down the ratio decidendi of the above mentioned case laws:-

In 2014 case the Hon'ble National Commission directed to replace the dead stop meter.

            In another 2014 reported at page 100, the Hon'ble National Commission condoned the delay being convinced by the sufficient cause.

            In another case of 2014 at page 242, we find that the Hon'ble National Commission has held that the electricity company cannot charge excessive bill.  The deficiency in service was also held by the Hon'ble National Commission.

            In the same order at page 690 Hon'ble National Commission has held that in the case of theft the Consumer Fora has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. 

In the case of Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, we find that in the order of the District Forum has set aside by the Hon'ble State Commission on Kerala services availed by a person was related to livelihood by means of self-employment. 

            We have meticulously gone through the letter of OP addressed to the complainant dtd.  08.09.15.  We have also scrutinized the bills raised in the name of the complainant after correction in obedience the direction of the this Forum.

            The total amount due from the complainant is Rs. 9951.77 + Rs. 809.94 = Rs. 10,761.71.

            Having perused the bills, pleadings and having considered the arguments both parties we are convinced that the complainant shall pay Rs. 10,761.71 as per recent bills by 10 equal instalments.

            Having considered the case laws, we hold that the complainant is a consumer and OP has deficiency in calculations of the bills that means in service and the complainant is entitled to get 10 instalments regarding payment of Rs. 10,761.71.

            Hence,

Ordered,

That, the case CC/2014/160 be and the same is allowed partly on contest.

The complainant is directed to pay Rs. 10,761.71 by 10 instalments which shall start from 25.02.16.  The OP shall be conscious in future regarding billing.

Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.