F I N A L   O R D E R

This is a case under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the prayer for an order directing the O.Ps. to rectify the bills to replace the meter with new one and to grant easy installments which the petitioner could pay.

The complainant’s case in brief is that the complainant is/was the consumer having S.C. No.3358/D, consumer No.B03349 and consumer ID 432061708 under the O.Ps. WBSEDCL and said S.C. No. 3358/D meter was defective for long time, the complainant made complain to the O.P. No.1 on various occasions to replace the defective meter and rectify the bills raised by the O.P. as those bills were inflated. But the O.P. neither rectified the inflated bills nor by replacing new meter in place of existing defective meter rather sent a notice to the complainant on 05.01.2013 with a direction to pay first installment of Rs.22,279/- on 13.02.2013 and second installment of Rs.66,834/- on 13.03.2013 failing which the electric connection vide S.C. No.3358/D will be disconnected. Though the complainant paid Rs.5,402/- on 19.03.2009. The complainant is a Domestic Consumer under the O.Ps. and it is not within the capacity of the complainant to pay the huge amount of bills and O.Ps. have deficiency in service on their part not to taking positive step as such the complainant was forced to come before this Forum with the prayer mentioned above.

The O.P. No.1 contesting the case by appearing on the date of hearing and by filing W.V. stating inter alia that the case is not maintainable, the O.P. installed substitute meter for correcting existing meter reading in the premises of the complainant, the existing meter of the complainant is correct, the complainant was paid 50% of the bill raised by O.P. of Rs.67,806/- as per order of Ld. Forum on account of injunction order and the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief from the O.P. and the O.P. prays for dismissal of the case.

The O.P. No.2 is not contesting the case by appearing on the date of hearing or by filing W.V. as such the case is heard ex-parte against the O.P. No.2.

DECISIONS WITH REASONS

To establish his case the complainant relied upon some photocopies of documents i.e. disconnection notice of the O.P., letter correspondences with the O.P. by the complainant, bill payment receipts and some electric bills of consumption period from Jul’10 to Sep’10, Oct’10 to Dec’10, Apr’11 to Jun’11, Jul’11 to Sep’11, Yellow Card and adduced other evidences including oral evidence. The O.P. also submit two photocopies of computer data mentioning the date of reading, unit consumption and amount etc. in respect of the meter-in-question. We carefully consider the contents of the petition of the complainant, W.V., documentary evidence on record and arguments advanced by the Ld. Lawyers for the parties.

It reveals from the documents on which the complainant relied upon, it appears that the complainant is/was a domestic consumer in S.C. No.3358/D and consumer No.B03349 and the said No. meter was/is installed in the premises of the complainant. The O.P. raised bills for the period from 06/07 to 06/12 amounting to Rs.67,806/- by sending a demand notice which are inflated bills as claimed by the complainant. Thereafter the complainant raised objection against the huge amount of bills raised by the O.P. on demand notice and made written complaint to the O.P. for rectification of bills raised by the O.P. as per demand notice as those are inflated bills and also prayed for replacement of a new meter in place of existing meter of the complainant’s premises. The O.P. did not pay heed to the complainant’s complaint. Again the complainant protest and made written complaint to the O.P. against the bills raised by the O.P. with the prayer as above but the O.P. without considering the complaint of the petitioner further raised bill of Rs.67,806/- for the period 09/07 to 06/12 by sending demand notice dated 05.01.2013 with the threaten that if the complainant failed to pay the bill of Rs.22,279/- on 13.02.2013 and Rs.66,834/- on 13.03.2013 the electric meter connection will be disconnected by the O.P. without further intimation.

On scrutiny it appears the bills submitted by the complainant that the O.P. raised bills for the period Jul’10 to Sep’10 showing 583 as units consumed, Oct’10 to Dec’10 showing 683 as units consumed, Apr’11 to Jun’11 showing 3059 as units consumed, Jul’11 to Sep’11 showing 1683 as units consumed and as per computer made billing data it appears that on the meter reading date on 10th October, 2011 3056 as units consumed. The copies of letters as mentioned above that the complainant immediately raised protest and repeatedly in writing made complaint to the O.P. but the O.P. did not take any step to provide service to the complainant. Though the O.P. at the end hour installed a check meter by the side of the original installed meter of the complainant’s premises which apparently shows a slight different reading between the meters but showing the conduct of units consumption of the old meter of disputed period mentioned above are abnormal and irregular as such it could easily says that the meter was/is installed being S.C. No.3358/D and Consumer No.B03349 was/is a defective meter.

In view of the discussions held hereinbefore it has been decided that the electric meter being No.SC3358/D installed in the premises of the complainant is defective. So the complainant has no liability to pay the amount for the units shown in the meter as mentioned above. Being a service provider the O.P. had to give effect to the complaint made by the complainant but the O.P. did not do so. Considering the above circumstances we are of the opinion that the O.P. has to raise a bill afresh for the period of 09/07 to 06/12 and further period of bill raised of demand notice dated 05.01.2013 on the basis of average units consumed by the complainant in the previous two year of the disputed period fixing a considerable time and easy installments for payment of such bills subject to adjustment of money paid on earlier dates by the complainant and replace a new meter in place of existing meter installed in the premises of the complainant of meter being No.SC3358/D and Consumer No.B03349.

In the above premises the case succeeds in part.

Fees paid is correct.  

Hence, it is

ORDERED,

that the Complaint Case No. CC-06/2013 is allowed on contest against the O.P. without cost and ex-parte against the rest.

Accordingly the complainant do get an award directing the O.Ps. to raise bill afresh for the period 09/07 to 06/12 and further period raised bill as per demand notice dated 05.01.2013 on the basis of average units consumed by the complainant in the previous two years of the disputed period fixing considerable time and easy installments for payment of such bill subject to adjustment of payment made earlier by the complainant without imposing any interest, replace a new meter in place of existing meter installed in the premises of the complainant being SC No.3358/D and Consumer No.B03349, not to disconnect the electric connection of SC No.3358/D in the meantime and to pay Rs.2,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant within one month from the date of this order failing which the amount of Rs.2,000/- will carry 8% interest p.a. from the date of filing of this complaint till the date of full realization and the complainant will be at liberty to put this order in execution in accordance with law.

Let a copy of this order be delivered to the parties each free of cost.