Date of filing:27.02.2017 Date of disposal:29.01.2018
Complainant: Ranjit Kumar Roy, S/o. Lt. Jogesh Chandra Roy, resident of ‘Sucheta’, 129,
Baranilpur Road, North Pally, Near Kamarpukur Par, P.O.-Sripally, Dist.-
Burdwan, Pin-713103.
-VERSUS-
Opposite Party: 1. WBSEDCL, represented by its Station Manager, having its office at
Customer Care, Sector-III, Baranilpur Bazar, P.O.-Sripally, Town, P.S. &
Dist.-Burdwan, Pin-713103.
2. WBSEDCL, represented by its Chairman, having its office at Bidyut Bhawan,
Block-C, 5th floor, Sector-2, Salt Lake, Kolkata-91.
Present: Hon’ble President: Smt.Jayanti Maitra(Ray).
Hon’ble Member: Miss Nivedita Ghosh.
Hon’ble Member : Dr. Tapan Kr. Tripathy.
Appeared for the Complainant: Ld. Advocate, Suvro Chakraborty
Appeared for the Opposite Parties: Ld. Advocate, Biswanath Nag.
JUDGEMENT
This is a case U/s. 12 of the C.P. Act for an award directing the O.Ps. to correct the bill dated 15.7.2015 and other bills, to refund the excess amount which they extracted from the complainant and to calculate the bill as per correct tariff amount, to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental pain, agony and harassment and to pay Rs.25,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant.
The complainant’s case in short is that he is a retired personnel. In the year 1981 he consumed the electricity. His meter number is 746892 and Consumer ID number is 512032880. In the year 2013 the complainant applied for enhancing the load from 0.56 KVA to 4.7 KVA before the O.P. No.1 as he wanted to install AC in his house. On the basis of such application the O.P. No.1 issued quotation and complainant also paid the quotation and security money. Thereafter the O.P. No.1 enhance the load of connection of the meter.
From the month of July, 2014 the meter became out of order. The complainant several times intimated the O.P. No.1 verbally about the defectiveness of the meter. The O.P. No.1 sent bill dated 31.10.2014 for the month April, 2014 to June, 2014 by declaring the meter as ‘defective one’ but did not take any step to replace the defective meter. In the said bill the O.P. No.1 raised bill of Rs.433/- for estimated unit 23 as t he previous reading and present reading was 20148 and 20171 respectively on 28.6.2014. The O.P. raised the bill by calculating Rs.18.82=00 per unit (Rs.433/- /23 unit=18.82/-). On 10.11.2014 the complainant paid the bill amount to the O.P. No.1 after raising verbal objection. The complainant submitted a written representation before the O.P. No.1 on 24.11.2014 for doing the needful as the meter is out of order. Thereafter, the O.P. sent the bill for estimated unit for the month of July, 2014 to September, 2014. The complainant paid the said bill amount. On 18.4.2015 the complainant received the bill amounting to Rs.450/- for 20 estimated units i.e. Rs.22.50/- per unit. In the said bill the O.P. No.1 alleged that the premises of the complainant had not been accessible for two consecutive billing cycles as the door was closed and for the alleged reason they will disconnect the electric line of the complainant. In this context the complainant beg to submit that he along with his family went to Delhi to look after his son, who, met with an accident on 02.7.2013. The complainant stay in Delhi upto 5.2.2014. So, allegation of ‘door closed’ and/or non-accessible of premises of the complainant is totally false.
On 15.7.2015 the complainant received a bill amounting to Rs.24,377/- for the
estimated unit 2853. In the said bill the O.P. calculate the unit on the basis of previous and present meter reading which were 20210 and 23063 on 13.4.2015 and 29.6.2015. The O.P. knowing well that the meter bearing No.746892 is a defective one inspite of that they raised the huge amount bill dated 15.7.2015. Against such bill the complainant submitted written representation before the O.Ps. on 23.7.2015. Lastly on 23.7.2015 the O.P. No.1 changed the old meter and installed the new meter bearing No.L4541094. On 26.9.2015, 23.10.2015 and on 15.10.2015 the complainant lodged complaint before the O.Ps. but inspite of taking any steps to correct the bill of 15.7.2015 the O.Ps. again sent bill dated 8.10.2015 by raising bill of Rs.17,889/- (Rs.42,782.00 – Rs.24, 893.00) for the month of April, 2015. Though the O.Ps. received the written representation from the complainant but they kept themselves mum regarding solve the dispute in spite of knowing the fault on their part. Moreover, they on each and every occasion only verbally assured that they will solve the dispute very soon but they failed to take any steps. Thereafter, the O.P. send one after another bill by adding the disputed bill amount with the current bill but did not take any step to solve the dispute. Lastly on 13.9.2016 the complainant received a notice from the O.Ps. from which he came to learn that the O.ps. are claiming Rs.63,302/- for the month of January, 2016 and February, 2016. In this notice the O.P.s intimated that if the complainant would not pay the said amount they would disconnect the electric connection. On 3.10.2016 the complainant paid all the dues along with disconnection charge. The O.P. also received Rs.9,908/- from the complainant but did not mention the purpose. Finding no other alternative the complainant filed this case for relief as stated above.
O.P. No.1 & 2 jointly contested this case by filing written version denying all the material allegations as alleged by the complainant. These O.Ps. also submits that the complainant is a consumer having his consumer ID number is 512032880 stands in the name of Ranjit Kumar Roy in his premises at 29, Baranilpur, Basakpara, Burdwan and the said connection was effected with a connected load of 0.56 KVA in the year 1981 and subsequently on the basis of the prayer of the complaint the connected load of the premises has been extended to 4.70 KVA and after extension of load of electric connection of Sri Ranjit Kr. Roy of Consumer ID No.512032880 one bill raised on 31.10.2014 on estimated basis as the meter (No.746892) was found defective. Therefore, consecutive two bills for the reading period 12.10.2014 to 10.01.2015 and 10.01.2015 to 13.04.2015 raised as door locked bill. All the above bills raised system generated and estimated basis for the reason of defective meter/door locked.
The above three bills raised for 23 units, 19 units and 20 units respectively which were not matched with the actual consumption of the consumer but the complainant did not raise any question against such bills. He paid the said bills without any question but as the bills generated in the system for the reading period 13.4.2015 to 29.6.2015 on estimated basis for defective meter the consumer raised objection against estimated bills. The consumer then allowed to install the new meter and installed the new meter on 23.7.2015. Due to obvious reason one another estimated units raised for the period 29.6.2015 to 23.7.2015.
After replacement of meter, 23.7.2015 to 31.3.2017 bill raised on actual meter reading. Meter reading result shows the bill raised for the reading period 28.6.2014 to 22.7.2015 on estimated basis for the reason defective meter/door closed as 4183 units for 394 days which is 10.61 unit/days basis where as consumption as per actual meter reading for the period 23.7.2015 to 4.7.2016 as 3975 unit which is 11.45 unit/days and for the period 4.7.2016 to 31.3.2017 as 2808 units which is 10.4 unit/days.
So, if it is observed consumption pattern of the consumer as per actual meter reading which is 10.5 to 11.5 unit/days. So, claimed unit on estimated basis for the defective meter/door closed period is 10.61 unit/days is the actual consumption of the consumer and the same is quite justified and as such there is no laches or negligence on the part of these O.P. but the complainant knowing everything filed the instant case on false and concocted ground which is fit to be dismissed with cost.
These O.Ps. further submits that in view of the provision of Section 42 (5) & 42 (6) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Rules & Regulations framed there under that if there is any grievance against any energy bills and its payment made thereof that should be ventilated before the Regulatory Commission or before the person or authority empowered by the said Act and the Hon’ble Supreme Court is also in the same view, so in view of the above this Ld. Forum has got no jurisdiction to try with the instant case, consequently the same is fit to be dismissed with cost.
DECISION WITH REASONS
To prove this case the complainant has filed his evidence on affidavit where he has stated all the facts of this case and prays as per prayer of his complaint petition. O.Ps. did not file any evidence separately but filed written version supported by affidavit where they discarded all the allegations of negligence and deficiency in service. From the evidence of the complainant, the written version of the O.P. and also the documents filed by the parties and after giving a patience hearing of argument advanced by the parties this Forum come to the conclusion.
Admittedly the meter of the complainant became out of order in the month of July, 2014. The bill dated 31.10.2014 for the period from April, 2014 to June, 2014 also goes to show there is declaration that the meter was defective one and O.P. raised bill at a maximum of unit consumption showing about 23 units and complainant paid the bill amount. On 24.11.2014 the complainant in writing approached the O.P. for replacement of the defective meter. In the mean time the O.P. paid the bill for the month of July, 2014 to September, 2014. Complainant stated that in the month of July, 2013 his son met with an accident and he went to Delhi and stayed there upto February, 2014. In the bill for the period from October, 2014 to December, 2014 the O.P. also mentioned that premises was in accessible for two consecutive billing cycle and also cautioned for disconnection during the inspection on 19.6.2015 if the door is found closed. On 15.7.2015 he received bill amounting to Rs.24,377/- calculated on the basis of previous reading for the period from 13.4.2015 to 29.6.2015. The complainant alleges that knowing the meter defective they raised the bill for huge amount which complainant had to pay. It is only on 23.7.2015 the meter was changed with a new one and on 15.10.2015 the complainant lodged complaint and also asked to serve him with correct bill but on 8.10.2015 O.P. raised bill showing previous unpaid amount and the bill is Rs.17,889/- for the month of April, 2015. The complainant alleges that he received notice of disconnection lastly on 13.9.2016 with an estimated amount of Rs.63,302/- with the bill of January, 2016 to February, 2016. However, O.P. paid the same to avoid disconnection. On 3.10.2016 the complainant again had to pay Rs.9,908/- but there is no mention for which purpose the Rs.9,908/- is charged. All the receipts showing such payment including payment of Rs.63,302/- and Rs.9,908/-, are filed.
In reply to the same O.Ps. in their written version and during their argument submitted that system generated bill for the reading period from 13.4.2015 to 29.6.2015 on estimated basis for defective meter was served and therefore, complainant raised objection against estimated bill. New meter was installed on 23.7.2015 and after replacement of meter the bill raised on actual meter reading from 23.7.2015 to 31.3.2017. To this effect they submitted ‘Billing Relevant Meter Reading Result’. From 15.1.2013 to 31.3.2017 and on calculation it goes to show that average unit consumed from 10.75 to 11.45. This fact has also been mentioned in the written version and complainant with objection paid the said bill to avoid disconnection.
It is stated by the complainant that in the year 2013 the complainant applied for enhancing the load from 0.56 to 4.7 KVA as he installed AC Machine in his house after paying necessary charge. O.Ps. enhanced the load for connection of the meter. Therefore, the consumption of the complainant was raised automatically for such enhancement. The O.Ps. also admit the fact that the meter afterwards became defective from July, 2014 and trouble arose when following the reading in system generated and estimated basis for defective meter and O.Ps. replaced the meter after more than one year on 23.7.2015. Therefore, it is deficiency on the part of the O.P. that he raised bill abruptly for the period from April, 2015 to September, 2015. The complainant faced heavy financial burden in making payment of such raising bills. More over O.P. did not give any explanation as to why O.Ps. received Rs.9,908/- on 5.10.2016 for what purpose. However, O.P. was able to satisfy this Forum that the consumption as per actual meter was shown for the period from 23.7.2015 to 4.7.2016 and that bill raised for the period from 28.6.2014 to 22.7.2015 on estimated basis for reason of defective meter and door closed and average unit of consumption was 10.61 in this period. While for the period from 23.7.2015 to 4.7.2016 average consumption was11.45 unit and from 4.7.2016 to 31.3.2017 average consumption was 10.04 unit. So, there is no abnormality in reading showing such consumption. It is supported with the document of O.Ps. ‘Billing View of Installation’. The complainant however, paid the raising amount to avoid disconnection.
From the above discussion we find that the bill showing average consumption of 10 to 11 units, is not abnormal. The financial shock the complainant received when he received the bill with huge amount showing arrear and there is a long delay in installing the new meter replacing the defective one and all causes mental harassment as well as financial burden to the complainant. Therefore, the O.P. is deficient and negligent in rendering service to its customer. However, O.P. failed to give any explanation why O.P. received Rs.9,908/- on 5.10.2016 for what purpose. Therefore, if the said amount is in excess of his charge of actual consumption of unit then the said amount should be adjusted with future bill of the complainant. With this observation we disposed of this case in favour of the complainant on contest but in part. Hence, it is
Ordered
that the case be and the same is allowed on contest but in part against the O.Ps.
The O.Ps. are directed to correct the bill dated 15.7.2015 and subsequent other bills and to adjust the said amount of Rs.9,908/- with his subsequent bills.
The O.Ps. are further directed to pay a compensation of Rs.3000/- for mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant ad also to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- as litigation cost.
The above all directions be complied with within 45 days from this date of order, failing which complainant is at liberty to execute the same in accordance with law.
Let the copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.
Jayanti Maitra (Ray)
Dictated and corrected by me. President
D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan
Jayanti Maitra (Ray)
President
D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan
(Nivedita Ghosh) (Dr. Tapan Kr. Tripathy)
Member Member
D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan
