DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
MUCHIPARA, BURDWAN.
Consumer Complaint No.121 of 2015
Date of filing: 18.05.2015 Date of disposal:29.01.2016
Complainant: Manas Kr. Som, S/o.Lt. Satyasadhan Som, resident of 5 No. Ichhlabad,
Khudirampally, Olaichanditala (East), P.O.-Sripally, P.S. & Dist.-Burdwan,
Pin-713103.
-VERSUS-
Opposite Party: 1.West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd., Burdwan
Section-III, represented through its Station Manager, having its office at
Baranilpur, P.O.-Sripally, P.s. & Dist.-Burdwan, Pin-713103.
2. West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd., Burdwan Urban
Division, Represented through its Divisional Manager, having its office at
G.T.Road, Mani Math, P.O. & P.S.-Burdwan, Dist.-Burdwan, Pin-713101.
Present : Hon’ble President: Sri Asoke Kr. Mandal
Hon’ble Member : Smt. Silpi Majumder
Appeared for the Complainant: Ld. Advocate, Suvro Chakraborty.
Appeared for the Opposite Party No.1: Ld. Advocate Biswanath Nag.
Appeared for the Opposite Party No.2: None.
JUDGEMENT
This is a case U/s 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 for an award directing the O.Ps. to correct the inflated bill issued for the period from February-2015 to April-2015, to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps., to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental pain and agony and to pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost.
The complainant’s case in short is that the complainant is a consumer of the O.P. No.1 vide Domestic Service Connection No.512231644 and Consumer ID bearing No.D05016. The men or agent of O.P. No.1 used to give spot bill to the complainant and the complainant paid the same regularly. In that connection the O.P. No.1issued Yellow Card bearing No.3241730 mentioning the meter reading therein. On 15.2.2015 the O.P. No.1 issued a spot bill for the month of February-2015 to April-2015 to the complainant after taking meter reading. From the said bill the complainant came to learn that he has to pay an amount of Rs.7,809/- as electric charge for consumption of 1051 unit of electricity for the said period. Immediately the complainant rushed to the office of the O.P. No.1 and requested them to correct the bill. In that connection he submitted a written representation on 16.2.2015. The complainant requested the O.P. No.1 for providing challenge meter for capturing the actual fault of the meter installed in the premises of the complainant. After several requests the O.P. No.1 provided a challenge meter bearing No.L4163563 on 23.2.2015 at the premises of the complainant after noting the challenge meter reading and old meter reading. Thereafter, on 8.3.2015 the O.P. No.1 took reading of both the meters wherefrom it appears that old meter showed reading as 4481. But the challenge meter showed the reading as 0024. As per reading of the old meter unit consumer by the complainant was 25 units whereas as per challenging meter the unit was 24. From it, it is clear that the old meter is providing abnormal reading. The O.P. No.1 thereafter changed the old meter with a new one on 9.3.2015 but they did not bother to correct the inflated bill as mentioned, from the Yellow Card where time to time the meter reading was noted, it will appear that the average consumption of the complainant show the meter in question was 235 per quarter. The complainant several times visited the office of the O.P. No.1 & 2 with a request to correct the said bill and made written representation but they did not bother to take any steps to correct the inflated bill as mentioned above. The act of the O.P. clearly show deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. Hence, this case with the prayer as mentioned above.
The O.P. No.1 contested this case by filing written version while stating inter-alia that the complainant has no cause of action and this case is not maintainable as in view of the Provision of Section-42(5) of the Electricity Act and the Rules & Regulation made there under if there is any grievance against any bill or its payment made thereof that should be ventilated before the Regulatory Commission or before the person or authority empowered by the said act and accordingly this Forum has no jurisdiction to try this case. It has been further stated by this O.P. that the complainant has a domestic service connection having Consumer ID No.512231644 under Burdwan Customer Care Centre Section-III, WBSEDCL, Baranilpur, Burdwan and all along bills have been claimed as per actual consumption and accordingly the bill for the period from February 2015 to April-2015 was raised in accordance with the reading shown in the installed meter. But the complainant after reading of the said bill raised an objection thereby asked the O.P. No.1 to check the installed meter and on the basis of such application to check the accuracy of the said meter. A challenge meter was installed in series on 23.2.2015 endorsing the meter reading of both the meters in the Yellow Card kept with the meter and subsequently on 8.3.2015 the meter reading of challenge meter was taken and found consumption as 24 units whereas consumption of the main meter was found as 25 units, just difference of 1 unit and considering the decimal (1/10th) point reading of the meters difference may be less than one unit i.e. negligible and as such installed meter was functioning properly and the bill raised was correct and justified. However, for consumer satisfaction the meter has already been replaced by a new one but inspite of that the complainant just to harass these O.Ps. filed this instant case and there was no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps.
It is therefore claimed by this O.P. that the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.
Inspite of service of notice upon the O.P. No.2, he did not appear in this case and did not contest this case by filing written version. Accordingly this case was heard ex-parte against him.
DECISION WITH REASON
To prove his case the complainant has relied upon his evidence on affidavit and photocopies of several documents which are letter dated 16.2.2015, Yellow Card connected with the electric meter in question, several electric bills and receipts showing payment of previous bills, inflated spot bill and the letter dated 12.3.2015. On the other hand the contesting O.P. has relied upon those documents filed by the complainant and he has filed written argument.
We carefully perused the documents on which the parties are relying and the contains of the pleadings. It is admitted by the parties that the complainant has a service connection having consumer ID No.512231644 under Burdwan Customer Care Centre, Section-III, WBSEDCL, Baranilpur, Burdwan in his premises, all along bills were raised and the complainant had been paying the bills regularly. It is also admitted that after the issuance of inflated bill for the period from the month of February-2015 to April-2015 the complainant made a written representation and on the basis of said written representation the O.P. No.1 provided a challenge meter bearing No.L4163563 on 23.2.2015 at the residence of complainant and at the time of providing such challenge meter the meter reading of the challenge meter was 0000 and the meter reading of the old meter was 4456 units and thereafter on 8.3.2015 reading of the both meters were taken and the consumption reading shown in the old meter was 25 units and the reading shown in the challenge meter was 24 units. So, it is clear that there was difference in the reading of the meters. It is further admitted that as the reading of the old meter and the challenge meter were not same, the O.P. No.1 replaced the old meter by a new one.
The complainant has brought an allegation against the O.Ps. stating that the O.Ps. though have replaced the defective meter but they have not corrected the inflated bill inspite of several requests made to them. In the written argument the contesting O.P. has stated that the consumption of electricity as shown in the challenge meter was 24 units and the consumption of the electricity was shown in the main meter as 25 units and just difference of one unit and considering the decimal (1/10th ) point reading of the meters difference may be less than one unit i.e. negligible and as such the meter was functioning properly and accordingly the bill raised was correct. However, for consumers satisfaction the installed meter was replaced by a new one and there is/was no laches or negligence on the part of the O.Ps. On carefully scrutiny, it appears that the challenge meter was installed on 23.2.2015 and the reading was taken on 8.3.2015 and within a short span difference of reading was one unit. So, it could be said that the main meter was defective. Moreover, the O.P. No.1 admitting the same replaced the old meter by a new one. Nothing is coming to show that the O.P. No.1 replaced the old meter by a new one by putting a note that for the satisfaction of the complainant only, such replacement was made. At this stage the claim of the O.P. No.1 that for the satisfaction of the complainant such replacement was made, should not be accepted and it should be treated as that the claim is nothing but after thought.
Considering the Yellow Card it appears that the O.P. since before 11.5.2011 had been raising electric bills up to the inflated bill but in no case it is found that the complainant consumed more than 286 units. On calculation it appears that in the long period average consumption of electricity by the complainant was 230 units approximately per quarter. From it, it is clear that the bill in question for the period from the month of February-2015 to April-2015 is no doubt excessive and it should be corrected.
Considering the evidence on record we are of the opinion that inspite of several requests the O.Ps. neglected to correct the such bill. This type of act should be treated as negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. So, the O.Ps. are liable to pay compensation to the complainant for harassment and mental agony.
In view of the above discussions, the case succeeds. Fees paid is correct. Hence, it is
ORDERED
that the complaint case being No.121/2015 is allowed on contest against the O.P. No.1 and ex-parte against the rest.
That the complainant do get an award directing the O.Ps. jointly or severally to correct the inflated bill raised for the period from February-2015 to April-2015 by issuing an average bill taking into consideration the period starting from last quarter of the year 2011 up to the month of January-2015 within 30 days from the date of this order, and to adjust the amount of Rs.3852/- paid by the complainant vide receipt No.127201321852 dated 6.5.2015 with such bill and with subsequent bills which will be raised on requirement, that the O.Ps. are directed to pay compensation of Rs.2000/- jointly or severally, and to pay Rs.1000/- as litigation cost to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which the complainant will be at liberty to put this order in execution in accordance with law.
Let the copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.
(Asoke Kr. Mandal)
Dictated and corrected by me. President
D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan
(Asoke Kr. Mandal)
President
D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan
(Silpi Majumder)
Member
D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan
