This case has been arising out of the complaint filed by the complainant against the O.Ps named above u/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The case of the complainant is that one electric meter was installed in the name of her father Jogesh Ch. Saha being service connection No. 195/D, Consumer ID No. K10063, Meter No. DD188018. That on 14/04/1992 the father of the complainant died living behind his wife Sabita Saha and his daughter namely Manjushri Saha is the complainant in this case. After demise of her father her mother paid all the bills to the O.Ps. That on 01/06/2004 the mother of the complainant died and then the complainant applied to O.P No. 1 to transfer the said service connection in her name and she filed an application on 24/04/2012 in this regard. That on 04/05/2016 the technician of the O.P No. 1 came to the house of the complainant to note down the meter reading and he noticed that the meter reading was abnormal increased from 02/02/2016 to 04/05/2016. On 18/05/2016 the O.P No. 1 issued a bill amounting to Rs. 18,808/- and in that bill O.Ps mentioned that Rs. 2461.57/- was outstanding for December, 2015 to April, 2016. After that the complainant rushed to the office of the O.P No. 1 and on 23/05/2016, she submitted the written objection against the said abnormal bill amount. Thereafter, the O.Ps time to time issued electric bill but always the O.Ps charged Rs. 18,808/- plus interest thereon and lastly on 20/05/2017 the O.Ps raised a bill amounting to Rs. 26,786.25/-. That the complainant several times visited the office of the O.P No. 1 to revise the electric bill but it was not done. There is gross deficiency in service from the side of the O.Ps due to their whimsical act. The complainant has filed this case against the O.Ps with a prayer to cancel the bill dated - 18/05/2016 amounting to Rs. 18,808/- and transfer the service connection in her favour and Rs. 50,000/- for her mental agony and sufferings and also Rs. 10,000/- for her litigation costs.
The O.Ps have contested the case by filing written version wherein they have denied all the allegations made by the complainant. The specific cases of the O.Ps are that the complainant has admitted the outstanding bill amount which is to be paid by her. They further stated that the note of meter reading card made by the person who taking the reading is not lawfully done because he is non-technical person and not staff of the W.B.S.E.D.C.L. They further stated that the bill is correct. They prayed for dismissal of the case.
Both parties have filed evidence-in-chief on affidavit and the complainant has filed some documents which is marked Annexure – A, B, C, C1 and D. Both the parties also filed written argument. The O.Ps also orally argument of the case but the complainant files a petition stating that he has no oral argument as she has filed the written argument of this case.
We have perused the materials on record meticulously. Considering the above pleadings the following issues are necessarily come out to consideration to reach just decision of the case.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the complainant a consumer u/s. 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986?
- Has this Commission jurisdiction to entertain the instant case?
- Have the O.Ps any deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant?
- Is the complainant entitled to get any relief/reliefs as he prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASON
Considering the nature and character of the case all the points are taken up together for consideration for the sake of brevity and convenience.
Point Nos. 1 and 2:- In this case it is an admitted position that the father of the complainant applied for electric meter and it was installed in his name although he has died but the meter in still existence and running and the complainant enjoying the electric through the said meter. So, according to the Consumer Protection Act the complainant is the consumer as she makes payment of electric bill according to his consumption. The O.Ps does not raise any objection on this point. We also find that this Commission has jurisdiction to try this case as the office of the O.P Nos. 1 and 2 is situated within the jurisdiction of this Commission and the complainant also resides within the jurisdiction of this Commission.
Point Nos. 3 and 4:- In this case there are two prayers made by the complainant one is transfer the meter in her name after the demise of her father and secondly, the O.Ps have sent an excess bill which she is not able to pay. After perusal of the case record we find that Annexure – A, the complainant wrote a letter to the O.P No. 1 to transfer the existing electric meter in her name after demise of her father but it was not done till today. Secondly, from Annexure - B is the meter card (yellow card) from which it appears that the meter reading was noted since 05/05/2015 there is no dispute of reading till 01/08/2015 but it appears that from 07/11/2015 to till 04/05/2016 meter reading was noted but there is no such documents to show that the bill of that period was paid by the complainant. It appears that there is a noting of the said exhibit - B that “Abnormal billing” but no signature is there although the other reading there is the signature of the person who noted the meter reading. It appears that the average consumption of electricity was 400 units according to reading 05/05/2015, 01/08/2015, 02/02/2016 and 04/05/2016 but there is an huge consumption of 1876 units as noted in 07/11/2015 and that amount of that reading is unpaid. Accordingly, the total outstanding bill has been increased due to the unpaid amount of 07/11/2015 along with interest. The complainant is not disclosed in his petition why the bill for reading dated 07/11/2015 to 02/02/2016 was not paid by her. The person who took the meter reading is not the regular staff of the O.Ps and also a non-technical person as stated by the O.Ps in his written version. How he can note down in the said exhibit – B regarding abnormal bill if he actually did show. The reading between 02/02/2016 to 04/05/2016 was 400 units consumed by the complainant which is consumed previously also but in the middle part the consumption was hire. It is the department to say whether the meter is perfectly running or not. The complainant has filed an application before the O.Ps for inspection of the meter and accordingly the Annexure - C1 is the document to show that the complainant wrote a letter to the O.P No. 1 for inspection of the meter and correct the bill but O.Ps did not modify the same. It also appears that the complainant did not disclose regarding non-payment of bill since November, 2015 as a result the outstanding amount has been increased it is not the case that the meter is stopped or there was no consumption the outstanding bill should be paid by the complainant. Complainant can contact with the O.P No. 1 for making payment of outstanding bill by way of installments but this Commission can not stop the said payment of outstanding bill as because the complainant has consumed the same. The meter perfectly right or not it will be O.Ps to decide by way of inspection if the meter is wrong then the outstanding amount be adjusted in the next bill but at present the complainant has to pay the said outstanding bill and other bills. After consideration of all these matters we find that the electricity was consumed by the complainant. At present she is not making payment as a result the outstanding bill has increased time to time. Noting in Exhibit - B by the meter reader has not force to note as because he is not a technical or the staff of the O.Ps. So, we find that the complainant at best to go to the O.P No. 1 to settle the dispute by making payment through installments and O.P No. 1 can inspect the electric meter if required and also to transfer the name of complainant as per law but in this case the complainant will not get any benefit of this Commission.
Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, for ends of justice; it is;-
ORDERED
that the instant case be and same is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps without costs.
Let a copy of this final order be sent to the concerned parties through registered post with A/D or by hand forthwith for information and necessary action.
Dictated & Corrected by me
