Consumer Complaint No. 15 of 2016
Date of filing: 10.02.2016 Date of disposal:25.05.2017
Present :
Sri Asoke Kr. Mandal Hon’ble President,
Sri Pankaj Kr. Sinha Hon’ble Member,
Sadhan Mukherjee @ Sadhana Mukherjee,
W/O Ram Shital Mukherjee,
Resident of Puranahat Main Road,
Opposite to Durga Mandir, P.O. Burnpur,,
P.S. Hirapur, Dist. Burdwan- 713325. Complainant.
VERSUS
- West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Corporation Ltd.
Asansol – 2, Customer Care Centre,
represented by its Station Manager,
having its office at Apcar Garden Main Road,
Apcar Garden, Asansol, Dist. Burdwan – 713301.
- West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Com Ltd. [Expunged vide
Burdwan Urban Division, Represented by its order No. 16 dt.
Divisional Manager, having its office at G.T. Road, 05.12.2016]
Mani Math, P.O., P.S. & Dist. Burdwan – 713101. Opposite Parties.
Appeared for the complainant : Ld. Advocate Suvro Chakraborty.
Appeared for the O. P. Nos. 1 : Ld. Advocate Md. Moinuddin.
JUDGEMENT
This is a case U/s. 12 of C. P. Act for an award directing the O.Ps. to correct the electric bills already issued and to issue subsequent bills related to electric meter in question, as per actual meter reading, to pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for mental pain, agony and harassment and to pay Rs. 30,000/- as litigation cost, to the complainant.
The complainant’s case in short is that the complainant is the consumer of the O.P. No. 1, having ID No. 513054382 and meter No. 78568799. The O.P. No. 1 used to raise electric bills to the complainant, mentioning the name Sadhan Mukherjee instead of Sadhana Mukherjee, as per meter reading. Sadhan Mukherjee and Sadhana Mukherjee are same and identical person i,e, the complainant. She used to pay such bills regularly. Thereafter in the month of May, 2014, the O.P. No. 1 send a bill dt. 08.05.2014 for the months of May, 2014, June, 2014 & July, 2014 mentioning “Unit consumed- 0.00” but showing ‘previous reading 7359.00 unit’ and ‘present reading 7514 unit’ and charging Rs. 788/-. Being threatened the complainant paid such amount with objection. Thereafter on the basis of the complaint lodged by the complainant, the O.P. No. 1 replaced the old meter by a new one bearing No. L 2858407 initial reading of which was ‘000241’ unit, on 18.05.2014. After such replacement, bill dt. 07.08.2014 for Rs. 649/- was sent by the O.P. No. 1 for the months of August, September & October, 2014 showing consumption of 104 unit though the actual consumption was 123 unit. The complainant paid such bill amount. Then the complainant got another bill dt. 10.02.2015 of Rs. 132.51/- showing present meter reading – 450 unit for the months of February to April, 2015. Without taking any meter reading the O.Ps. sent another bill dt. 16.05.2015 showing consumption of 500 unit and claiming Rs. 3,013/- for the month of May to July, 2015 arbitrarily in higher slab to get undue gain. The complainant raised verbal objection but the O.P. No. 1 without solving the dispute sent bill dt 18.08.2015 showing consumption unit – 1937 and claiming Rs. 15,728/- for the month of August to October, 2015 on the basis of its self made meter reading. The complainant lodged complaint on 22.08.2015 through website and the complaints lodged by the complainant were registered as complaint Nos. 327857, 327883 & 331729 but the O.P. No. 1 without solving the same whimsically raised next bill dt. 13.11.2015 of Rs. 14,783/- for the months of November to January, 2016 showing outstanding balance of Rs. 10,703.37/-. The complainant when took attempt to pay such amount through online but it was noticed that the bill amount was Rs. 20,151/-. Getting no relief the complainant knocked the door of the Consumer Affairs Department, Durgapur. Being noticed the O.P. No. 1 inspected the meter and declared the meter as correct. The bills as mentioned are illegal. There was deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. 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 case is not maintainable, the complainant has no cause of action and she has filed this case on false, baseless and fabricated grounds. It has been further stated by this O.P. No. 1 that on 08.05.2014 the bill of 155 units for the months of May to July 2014 was generated on estimated basis as the meter No. 78568799 in question, was defective, on 16.05.2014 the old meter was replaced by new meter No. L 2858407, an adjustment of 19 units was claimed for interval period of 05.05.2014 to 15.05.2014 on estimated basis and 104 units was claimed for the period from 16.05.2014 to 07.08.2014 as per new meter reading, thereafter the meter reader regularly took the meter readings and as per meter readings bills were raised, final reading was found 3822 unites on 04.03.2016 and in database first reading was shown 3548 unites on 11.02.2015 which confirmed that the readings and billings were done as per meter readings and till 08.03.2016 an outstanding amount of Rs. 20,285/- was found due which is payable by the complainant, during inspection it is dictated that due to earthling problem, the display in the meter reading is effected, the complainant has liability to solve such problem urgently and there is no deficiency in service on the part of this O.P. It is therefore, claimed by this O.P. that the case is liable to be dismissed with cost against the O.P.
The order No. 16 dt. 05.12.2016 shows that the name of O.P. No. 2 has been expunged on the basis of the prayer of the complainant. As such this order/judgment is not binding upon the O.P. No. 2.
DECISION WITH REASONS
In support of his case the complainant has relied upon the contents of the complaint, evidence on affidavit and the photocopies of electric bills dt. 08.05.2014, dt. 07.08.2014, dt. 15.11.2014, dt. 10.02.2015, dt. 16.05.2015, dt. 18.08.2015, dt. 13.11.2015, yellow card prepared on 18.05.2014 and computer generated view bill for account Number (513054382). On the other hand the O.P. No. 1 has relied upon the the evidence on affidavit sworn by its Asst. Engineer named Debashish Kumar.
We carefully perused the contents of the pleadings and other materials on record. The complainant has stated that in the month of May, 2014, the O.P. No. 1 sent a bill dt. 08.05.2014 for the months of May, 2014, June, 2014 & July, 2014 mentioning ‘Unit consumed- 0.00’ but showing ‘previous reading 7359.00 unit’ and ‘present reading 7514 unit’ and charging Rs. 788/- and she paid such bill amount. The photocopy of electric bill dt. 08.05.2014 shows that such bill was prepared on estimated basis as previously installed meter No. 78568799 in the premises of the complainant was found defective. The contesting parties have admitted that the old meter being number 78568799 was replaced by a new one bearing No. L2858407 initial reading of which was ‘000241’ unit, on 18.05.2014. It is not disputed that on the basis of the complaints lodged by the complainant, O.P. No. 1 inspected the meter No. L2858407 and it was found that the meter was running properly. The complainant has not challenged consumption units as claimed by the O.P. No. 1. By filing this complaint the complainant has not made any prayer to correct bill dated dt. 08.05.2014 for the months of May, 2014, June, 2014 & July, 2014 which was prepared on estimated basis as the meter No. 78568799 was defective. The complainant has challenged the electric bills dt. 07.08.2014, dt. 15.11.2014, dt. 10.02.2015, dt. 16.05.2015, dt. 18.08.2015, 13.11.2015 the consumption period of which was from the month of August, 2014 to January, 2016 and subsequent bills raised after the installation of new meter No. L2858407 stating that those bills were raised arbitrarily in higher slab to get undue gain and has prayed to correct those electric bills as per actual meter reading. It is admitted that the complainant has paid Rs. 649/- to meet the claim made in disputed bill dt. 07.08. 2014, Rs. 563/- to meet the claim made in disputed bill dt. 15.11.2014, Rs.132/- to meet the claim made in disputed bill dt. 10.02.2015 and Rs. 3,014/- to meet the claim made in disputed bill dt. 16.05.2015. The complainant has not paid any further amount. The complainant has stated that when she took attempt to pay Rs. 14,783/- as claimed in bill dt. 16.05.2015 through online, she noticed that the bill amount was Rs. 20,151/- and as such she failed to pay such amount. In any corner of the complaint the complainant has not stated that the new meter No. L2858407 is defective. The case of O.P. No 1 that on 16.05.2014 the old meter was replaced by new meter No. L 2858407, an adjustment of 19 units was claimed for interval period of 05.05.2014 to 15.05.2014 on estimated basis and 104 units was claimed for the period from 16.05.2014 to 07.08.2014 as per new meter reading, thereafter the meter reader regularly took the meter readings and as per meter readings, bills were raised, has not been proved by adducing any believable evidence. Moreover this case of the O.P. No. 1 is contradictory to the bills issued by it. The copies of bills dt. 07.08.2014, dt. 10.02.2015, dt. 16.05.2015 dt 18.08.2015 and dt. 13.11.2015 clearly show that those were raised arbitrarily causing pressure upon the complainant to pay consumed unit charges in higher slab. The O.P. No. 1 has claimed that on 04.03.2016 meter reading was found 3822 unites and in database first reading was shown 3548 unites on 11.02.2015 which confirmed that the readings, billings were done as per meter readings. The complainant has not admitted the case of the O.P. No. 1 but she has not challenged the consumed units as claimed by the O.P. No. 1. So the complainant has liability to pay the charges for the units consumed by her but she has no liability to pay the same in higher slab which is not applicable here. In the above premises the O.P. No. 1 is liable to assess the total units of electricity consumed by the complainant having consumer ID No. 513054382 within the period starting from 06.05.2014 and ending with 30.04.2017 on estimated basis for the period from 06.05.2014 to the date of installation of new meter No. L2858407 and on the basis of the meter reading of the new meter No. L2858407 for the rest period ending with 30.04.2017, to divide the same equally for each month of such period as actual meter reading was not displayed due to earthling problem and to raise a consolidated bill without adding any interest or L.P.S.C. but adjusting the amount already paid in installments by the complainant within the period from 08.08.2014 to 21.05.2015 & the amount if paid the complainant subsequently, in applicable slab and to give an opportunity to the complainant to pay such bill amount in monthly installments but the O.P. No. 1 is at liberty to raise subsequent bills on the basis of actual meter reading, In the facts and circumstances of this case, the complainant is not entitled to get any award for compensation and litigation cost.
Accordingly, the case succeeds in part. Fees paid, is correct. Hence, it is
Ordered
that complaint being No. 15 of 2016 is allowed in part on contest against the O.P. No.1 without any cost,
that the complainant do get an award directing the O.P. No. 1 to assess the total units of electricity consumed by the complainant having consumer ID No. 513054382 within the period starting from 06.05.2014 and ending with 30.04.2017 on estimated basis for the period from 06.05.2014 to the date of installation of new meter No. L2858407 and on the basis of the meter reading of the new meter No. L2858407 for the rest period ending with 30.04.2017, to divide the same equally for each month of such period and to raise a consolidated bill without adding any interest or L.P.S.C. but adjusting the amount already paid in installments by the complainant within the period from 08.08.2014 to 21.05.2015 & the amount if paid the complainant subsequently, in applicable slab within 30 (thirty) days and to give an opportunity to the complainant to pay such bill amount in equal 4 (four) monthly installments and also directing the O.P. No. 1 to raise subsequent bills on the basis of actual meter reading, failing payment of any installments as mentioned by the complainant, the case shall stand dismissed and failing compliance of the above direction given to the O.P. No. 1, the complainant shall be at liberty to put this award in execution in accordance with law.
Let the copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.
Dictated and corrected by me.
(Asoke Kr. Mandal)
President
(Asoke Kr. Mandal) D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan
President
D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan
(Sri Pankaj Kr. Sinha)
Member
D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan
