Judgement date -18.7.17.
The case of the complainant is that complainant had a service connection under Singur Haripal Rural Electric Cooperative Society. The service connection is 2358, Consumer no.422176. At first the complainant was given a defective meter which was unable to show the exact meter reading . The complainant again applied for a new meter on 16.9.2006. One new meter was installed . The new meter shown the exact meter reading.
It is further case of the complainant that bill was prepared on the basis of reading of old meter for which the complainant raised objection. The complainant was assured that nothing would be paid in respect of the said bill prepared as per defective meter. The complainant got one bill on 6.1.2012 @ Rs.43,996/- only as outstanding dues. It is also case of the complainant that on 24.8.2011 the complainant went to the office of OP no.1 and expressed his willingness to pay the actual amount of his consumption but no result. The complainant made several correspondences with Op and various authorities regarding inflated amount of electric bill prepared on the basis of defective meter but got no effective result . The complainant informed the matter to OP no.2, Divisional Engineer, regarding the anomalies in the bill on 16.10.2014 but Op no.2 did not take any step. The OP no.1 did not accept the bill upto the month of March, 2014.
Further case of the complainant is that present consumer number of the complainant is E820650 and Consumer ID no.167422176. The Opposite party 1 claimed Rs.43,996/- on the basis of the defective meter and the office of the op no.1 refused current payment without former payment of Rs.43,996/-. The complainant went to the office of Op no.1 on several times but Op no.1 did not take the payment of the cost of consumption of electricity for the house of the complainant. The cause of action arose from 16.10.2014 when the op no.1 did not take the payment and threatened the complainant/petitioner to disconnect the domestic connection. Hence, this case.
So the basic contention is that the complainant did not pay the amount of consumption from beginning to 16.9.2006 when new meter was installed. So, the case of the complainant is two folds firstly that the Op no.1 did not take the bill from inception to 16.9.2006 and thereafter consuming electricity 11,422 unit and thereafter, no bill was taken in the pretext of non payment of bill of Rs.43,996/- stated to be prepared by seeing reading on defective meter.
The Op no.1 appeared by filing Written version denying all material allegations made against them. The Op no.1 admits the complainant as consumer. It is also stated by the oP that date of consumption of unit of 11422 has not been stated by the complainant i.e. duration of consumption of electricity by complainant. The Op no.1 stated that conventional meter of the consumer was replaced on 26.12.2012 and the static meter was installed on 26.12.2012. The Op no.1 stated on and from 16.6.2008 records concerning service connection are available. There is no mention of date and year of correspondence. It is stated by the Op no.1 in para 10 that it is evident that petitioner /complainant got connection on and from 2.12.1998 and reading in the conventional meter was 17,848 unit on 16.6.2006 and as per application of the consumer a new meter was installed on 26.12.2012 with initiation reading 10 . It is also case of the op no.1 that on 6.1.2012 the bill month April to June 2004 and January 2006 to March 2006 was Rs.43,996/- . It is also case of the Op no.1 that complainant has paid Rs.20,000/- on 23.12.2004 although the amount of Rs.71,411/- was due for the bill month March, 2006, July 2006 , March, 2007, July 2007, September, 2007 , January, 2012 , June 2012 and April 2014 and June 2014 and October 2014, March, 2015. Accordingly it is submitted that the complainant is still liable to pay huge amount of consumption of electricity and to waive the payment false case has been filed .
To prove the case both sides filed documents , evidence in chief and Written Notes of argument.
Points for determination
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the oP ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief?
The two issues are taken together for easiness of discussion.
After going through the complainant’s case it appears that complainant did not mention the exact date when he got the connection in his premises. It is admitted position that complainant was given electric connection by the oP. Consumer number and connection number is not material as per dispute in this case. It is material in this case what was the total consumption unit of the nant from the date of installation of electricity line till the billing date. It is the burden of proof upon the complainant to prove his case by showing reliable documents of connection date, bill reading date and billing amount since inception of installation to 16.9.2006. It is the case of the complainant tat read of old meter and new meter was clubbed together and billing has been prepared on the basis of defective meter i.e. old meter vide para 4 of complaint. It is also the case of the complainant that complainant got one bill on 6.1.2012 showing amount of Rs.43996/- as outstanding dues. He did not show on his own accord regarding the actual consumption unit which have been admitted by the complainant in para 3 as 11422. He did not adduce any evidence or documents to show his consumption from installation of electric meter in his premises to 6.1.2012 as per his own complaint (para 6). Only allegation of complainant is that Op no.1 claimed arrear due amount of Rs.43,996/- (para 11). Except this allegation no other allegation have been stated by the complainant. The complainant did not show any paper regarding any reading alleged to have been taken by the Op no.1 . On the other hand, the op no.1 has tried to give a narration of consumption amount by the complainant. In para 10 middles five line Op no.1 stated the price of consumption of electricity and thereafter, Op no.1 has given a brief statement of consumption of electricity by the complainant. The complainant did not take any attempt to unearth the truth before this Forum. The complainant did not mention the date of installation, did not mention the price of electricity consumed by the complainant from 1998 to 2006 and from 2006 to 2007, 2008 and so on. Although the complainant stated his case in evidence in chief . The allegation of the complainant itself shows that it is not clear and complainant is not in clear hand regarding the consumption of electricity by the complainant. Rather it appears from the complaint that the complainant enjoyed electricity without any payment to Op no.1. So after a deep deliberation over the case of the complainant as per his complaint it is clear that complainant is not in clear hand and failed to prove his case by adequate cogent evidence.
Hence ordered
That the C.C.case no.239 of 2014 be and the same is dismissed on contest.
Let a copy of this order be made over to the parties free of cost.
