This is a complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the prayer for restraining the O.P from disconnection of Electricity and an order to receive the bill for the month of October, 2014 for Rs.8,234/- and to withdraw the unethical, illegal and unlawful demand of Rs.5,86,484/-showing in the bill as outstanding for the month of August and September, 2014 and for compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for unnecessary harassment, mental pain and also Rs.50,000/- as litigation cost.
The case of the complainant in short is that he has service connection of Commercial Electric Service being consumer I.D. No.4321756 and installation No.690957. He received the bill for the month of Ocxtober, 2014 amounting to Rs.8, 234/- and went to make payment within due date on 05.12.14. The Birnagar Electric Supply Office denied to accept the payment and asked the complainant to deposit the said current bill together with outstanding bill for the month of August and September, 2014 amounting to Rs.5,86,484/- . Petition then met the Station Manager at Birnagar Office and asked to supply bill details of the said alleged outstanding amount and requested not to take any action till this dispute is disposed of. But Station Manager sent a team to disconnect the said service connection on 06.12.14 without any information or notice. The petitioner has been using the commercial connection in his poultry firm. For the month of February 2014 to April 2014 he paid Rs.880/-. He paid Rs.640/- for period May 2014 to July 2014 has raised by the O.P.
On 21.01.14 he paid as security charge, installation charge etc. Rs.1,44,631/- as he enhanced the load for the said connection from 0.6 KVA to 30 KVA from the month of June 2014. He paid regularly all bills since 2009 up to the date of enhancement. Petitioner however sent a letter on 06.12.14. But no steps were taken to redress his grievance. He also requested Divisional Manager, Station Manager to supply the details of alleged outstanding bills in that letter but with no response. The last payment he made on 03.06.14. Petitioner therefore having no other alternative filed this complaint.
O.P. appeared and contested the case by filing written version, where they categorically denied the allegations of the complainant. O.P. made a very elaborate written statement assailing the complaint. O.P stated that the bill issued by the O.P is correct and petitioner is bound to pay the bill amount with outstanding bills. O.P admitted that petitioner prayed for extension of load capacity .6 KVA to 27.1 KVA and O.P issued a quotation for such extension. Accordingly on 21.01.14 the quotation amount was deposited by the petitioner and the load capacity is extended accordingly and changes the category from Commercial to Industrial. So, there is necessary to change the meter of the said petitioner which was replaced by a new three phase meter bearing No.ST728464. At the time of replacing the old meter final reading shown in the meter was 69968 units which were confirmed by the petitioner as well as the deputed contractor by the O.P in prescribed form.
Petitioner has paid only 11,450 units and the petitioner has to pay balance ( Rs.69,968 – Rs.11,450) = 58,518 Units. The petitioner never paid for such units he consumed and it is shown as outstanding bill in the subsequent bills of the petitioner. That the petitioner has agreed to deposit the balance bill which he actually consumed before effecting load extension and he verbally intimated that he will make such payment in 12 instalments.
Petitioner never paid any amount as he agreed to pay by instalments. The O.P issued all bills to the petitioner as per meter consumption unit. O.P has no deficiency or negligence in effecting service. That complainant is a commercial consumer and deposited monthly commercial electric bill. All the disputes regarding the bills, this Forum has no jurisdiction to try the same. Therefore, O.P prays for dismissal of this case with cost. X
DECISION WITH REASONS
Petitioner has been examined as P.W.1 and he filed documents, Xerox copies of letters issued by the complainant and also by the Divisional Engineer/O.P, letter threatening disconnection, copy of electricity bills from Oct’14 to March 2015, money receipts showing payment of quotation money, copy of notice to complainant etc. He deposed as per version of the complaint. That, on 18.03.15 he received notice following order of this Forum to deposit 50% of bill amount at Rs.56,469/- shown as bill amount as outstanding in the month of Oct’2014 and he deposited the same on 23.03.15. That the bill issued Dec’2014 to March 2015 showing a huge outstanding amount is illegal specially the bill for Sept’2014. However, in cross examination he admits that he received first commercial connection and thereafter he received Industrial connection in the year 2009 - 2010 . He failed to produce any bill showing payment of 2008- 09. The Raj Breeding and Poultry Firm where he is now using as Industrial connection which he received following bill procedure and paying all the installation charges.
O.P. 1 /Station Manager and Divisional Engineer deposed that the capacity from 0.6 KVA to 27.1 KVA was extended for his Poultry Firm after issuing quotation. That the consumer consumed electricity during the period after enhancement 69968 units in total and he paid electricity bill only for 11450 units. The balance unit of electricity 58,518 units which the consumer agreed to pay by 12 equal monthly instalments which he failed. The meter is O.K and actual consumption is shown following notice dt.04.02.15 he paid 50% of the bill amount for Oct and November 2014.
At the time of hearing of this case O.P filed a written calculation regarding the consumption of unit of the petitioner consumer from 16.02.09 to 16.02.14 having an interval of 64 months, total consumption of 69968 units amounting to 1093 units per month average. O.P admits that there were irregular meter units and actual consumption of units was not brought under the notice of the office and also not shown regularly in the bills. That the reading might have been recorded much lower than actual consumption of unit. This irregularity is certainly deficiency in service. O.P also admits that as there was no actual reading following actual consumption the petitioner was deprived of his valuable right of Slab benefit in making payment of charges. Petitioner has to pay the bill unit in lowest Slab. Moreover, the bill amount being not paid LPSC is being calculated for delayed payment or for nonpayment for long time. Late payment surcharge should be waived as it has been calculated in the system generated procedure with outstanding dues. O.P admits that these true factors of Slab benefit and LPSC cost heavier to the complainant. O.P calculated 1093 units per month for 69968 units consumption by 64 months. At the same time in his evidence and W.V O.P admits that petitioner already paid 11450 units of outstanding amount and balance unit to be paid is 58518 units. Therefore an average unit is less than 1093 units per month. Moreover, the bills submitted by the petitioner for the month of Oct’2014 to March 2015 goes to show that petitioner consumed l;ess then 1093 units per month. Actually if we calculate the average units consumed as per bills it will be about 900 units per month. Therefore, petitioner is entitled to get Slab benefits in that rate of actual consumption. Moreover, he was charged with LPSC as the matter was under consideration and he should not be charged with LPSC. It is the negligent and deficiency in service that O.P failed to raise bill following actual and correct reading after enhancement of the load capacity from .6 to 27.1 KVA.
After hearing of Ld. Lawyers of both sides and following arguments Ld. Lawyer for O.P and written calculation submitted by O.P it appears to this Forum that the petitioner/consumer consumed electricity less that 1000 units per month and he is entitled to get Slab benefit and LPSC should be waived from the bill amount. Ld. Lawyer for O.P submits that if we calculate the actual consumption then the outstanding amount of the O.P will not be less then Rs.3,00,000/- for the period in the bill of March 2015 the outstanding goes to show Rs.4,90287/- for August 2014. This huge amount of outstanding dues accumulated during the period necessarily includes the charges if LPSC and petitioner was also deprived of Slab benefit. The unit consumed is charged without Slab benefit is much higher and causes a great injustice to the petitioner. It is admitted by O.P in his written calculation.
After hearing both sides and on perusal of the documents filed by the parties and in considering the written calculation filed by the O.P through A.E & S.M. , Birnagar C.C.C,W.B.S.E.D.C.L, Raiganj, this Forum safely conclude that the petitioner has consumed electricity for the period 16.02.09 – 16.02.14 consumed 69968 units and Ld. Lawyer for the O.P submits that if he is charged to pay Rs.3,00,000/- as lump sum amount then it will meet ends of justice. Ld. Lawyer for petitioner also did not dispute this argument.
Giving due consideration to the contents of the complaint petition, documentary evidence on record, hearing, argument advanced by the lawyers of both sides, the Ld. Forum has come to the findings as follows: -
That the petitioner has been able to prove by sufficient oral and documentary evidence that O.P raise bill unethically and made an unprincipled demand of bill for the month of August 2014 to September 2014 of Rs.5,86,484/-. That O.P was never regular in meter reading, showing actual unit consumed periodically and abruptly served with bill with heavy amount with LPSC and without giving Slab benefit to the petitioner. The high amount of bill was generated without showing regular reading which he actually consumed. The petitioner if directed to pay Rs.3,00.000/- as lump sum amount for the outstanding bill amount it will certainly meet ends of justice. Petitioner has already paid Rs.56469/- on 23.03.2015 following an order of this Forum from his outstanding dues. O.P therefore entitled to realize the balance amount of Rs.3,00,000/- - Rs.56469= Rs.2,43,521/- towards his outstanding bills. The O.P was deficient and negligent in giving service to its consumer, the present petitioner who was otherwise a regular good pay master.
With this observation the case is disposed of in favour of petitioner.
Fees paid is correct. Hence, it is
ORDERED,
That the consumer complaint being No. CC - 116/2014 be and the same succeeds on contest.
The petitioner is directed to pay the amount Rs.2,43,521/- towards the outstanding dues of his electricity bills with five equal monthly instalments starting from the month of July 2017 with his current electricity bill. Further, we direct the O.P. to pay Rs.2,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony and Rs.1,000/- as litigation cost which may be adjusted with the outstanding dues of the petitioner.
Let copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.
