This case has arisen out of application U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The fact of the case is that Chandan Kr. Choudhury and his two brothers started a partnership firm named United Engineers and after demise of his two elder brothers said firm converted into M/s ALTICC Engineers (P) Ltd, which manufactured PCC Poles & supplied to the then WBSEB for the Districts of West Dinajpur & Malda since 1976. Due to completion of rural electrification in West Bengal in 2009, said factory was closed down & he requested O.P.No:2 to convert three phase line to a single phase line and on deposit of quotation money single phase meter was installed on 04.07.2017 but I.D number had changed viz ID 401909267 but not disconnected three phase line as on 21.09.2017 i.e ID 423163678 where unit was showing 0 as per bill.
That he received a print preview of generic ASCII page 00001 to 10001 where demanding 13,122 unit consumption for July, August & September, 2017. After installation of single phase meter first bill issued against ID 401909267 dated 13.09.2017 previous reading was 0 present reading is 47 units. Three phase line bill on dated 21.09.2017 previous reading 11,500, present reading 11,500 + Consumption is 0. Against ID 401909267 (Single phase) bill raised on 16.12.2017 showing previous reading 47 present reading 97 i.e consumption 50 units. He received a fictitious plan paper bill for the month July, August, September, 2018 where previous reading is 147 instead of 97 units and present reading 13,269 units consumed 13,122 units bill value Rs.1,34,640/- for the said single phase line. He raised complaint to O.P.No:2’s Customer Care dated 26.07.2018 and challenged/parallel meter No:T02612656, dated 01.08.2018 was installed where initial reading was 000000 as per yellow card & Old meter was taken of which was installed on 04.07.2017 that meter reading was 000327. A staff of WBSEDCL visited again on 02.08.2018 & note down meter reading 13,728 (Yellow Card). After discussion with O.P.No:2 again AE & SM visited on dated 06.12.2018 & reported consumption 000000. Instead of rectification of their fault a letter dated 27.12.2018 was issued as to difference between 06.12.2018 to 20.12.2018 consumption 26 units requesting the complainant to make payment of all outstanding bills Rs.1,42,102/- otherwise legal action would be taken. Complainant issued last & final reminder on 01.01.2019 challenging to WBSEDCL & ultimatum given up to 15.01.2019 which comparison to last case Ref. No:C.C/17/30 of 2017 M/s Chandreyee Choudhuri Vs WBSEDCL where found that O.Ps computerized system is very poor to poorer than that of CESCL. Due to monopoly business O.Ps are cheating public. Complainant prays for direction upon the O.Ps to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for harassment, mental pain, agony & breach of peace and litigation cost of Rs.30,000/- etc.
O.Ps contested the case by filing W.O admitting part of complainant’s case that the recorded within the interval of 09.07.2018 to 11/2018 is 13,904 units in 422 days i.e 33 units per day have been derived from visual inspection of the meter which symbolically represents burning of 1.375 KW for constant of 24 hrs but complainant declared that connected load is restricted to 0.70 KVA, so it might have happened as either the meter recorded as detected to the electrical drawl system defective subject to verification if any fault of electrical system of the wiring which might have led to drawl of huge quantity of current either for leakage in the system or for development of any short circuit in system & in such case the drawl of excessive current by the consumer which impresses the apparent demand to an erroneous value and leading to Phantom loading. The last recorded reading was 166 units captured in 80 days i.e 2.075 unit per day and as per natural observation this unit is synchronous to the connected load and quiet computable to connected load, so this incident is a signal of self proof that the meter is correct because the defect of energy meter is permanent in nature but fault of electrical installation may not be permanent and sometimes experiences self correction not known to the O.Ps. Fact is a challenge meter was installed dated 06.12.2018, installed meter G01832934 reading 14051, Check meter G012327345 reading 00000 and on 29.12.2018 reading of installed meter and check meter shown 14077 & 00026 respectively, both meters are showing consumption of 26 units in 14 days. The O.Ps have no latches or deficiency in service. The complainant is liable to pay the bill pressed as per meter reading consumed by it. O.Ps prays for dismissal of the case.
Points for Consideration
- Whether there was latches or deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps, which gives rise cause of action to file the complaint is entitled to get relief (s) as prayed for?
D e c i s i o n W i t h R e a s o n s
It is not disputed that Chandan Kr. Choudhuri and his two brothers started a partnership firm named United Engineers and after demise of his two elder brothers said firm was converted to M/s ALTICC Engineers (P) Ltd, which manufactured PCC Poles & supplied to the then WBSEB for the Districts of West Dinajpur & Malda since 1976 & Chandan Kumar Choudhuri and his daughter M/s Chandreyee Choudhuri became the Directors of said firm.
It appears that the Director of the firm by letter dated 25.04.2017 prays for rectification of error bills specifically for the month of May 2017, billing date 11.03.2017 for Rs.7713/- for 1026 units, similar to on an average bill for April 16 to April 17 ranging from 42 to 70 consumed unit for the said period against unit consumed for the month of April 2016 to April 2017 described therein.
Annexure-A shows that Chandan Kumar Choudhuri as Director of said firm submits application dated 27.04.2017 Re: Consumer ID 432163678 praying for disconnection of three phase 440 volts meter & installation a single phase (220 volt) 0.2 KW but up to 0.6 KW meter for avoiding regular fixed/demand charges @Rs.329.00 per month.
Annexure-B is the quotation for single phase dated 28.04.2017, application (SEB Form No:1 duly filled, with existing use’s bill on paying Rs.5/- for application booklet)type-new connection, Applicable Tariff Scheme:A (CM-R), contract demand:600 watt, 1 service connection charges Rs.400/- 2. Security deposit (a) Energy charge (EC) Rs.1261.44 (b) Fxd/DMD charge (FC/DC) Rs.90/- (C) meter rent Rs.45/- i.e Rs.1397/- & money receipts show that said quoted amount Rs.400/- + 1397/- were deposited on 25.05.2017. Annexure-C shows payment of disconnection charge Rs.40/- on 29.06.2017.
Annexure-D is single phase ID No:041909267 First Bill depicting prev reading date 04.07.2017, present reading date 12.09.2017, billing date 13.09.2017, connection load 0.70 KVA, previous reading 0.00, present reading 47.00, quarterly bill i.e 15.66 units per month, paid by the complainant.
Annexure-E is three phase line bill of Consumer ID 432163678 depicting Prev reading date 09.01.2017, CUR reading date 07.09.2017, billing date 21.09.2017, previous reading 11508, present reading 11508.00 unit consumed 0.00.
Annexure-I is the second bill of single phase depicting Prev. reading date 12.09.2017, present reading date 12.12.2017, billing date 16.12.2017, previous reading 47.00, present reading 97.00 unit consumed 50.00, quarterly bill i.e 16.66 units per month, which the complainant has also paid.
Annexure-J is a print preview of generic ASC II Page 00001-00001 regarding single phase Consumer ID 401909267, Prev.reading date 12.02.2018, Present Reading date:11.05.2018, billing date 19.07.2018, Previous Reading 147 units, Present Reading 13269.00, Units Consumed 13122.00 (due). The complainant challenged the bill stating it fictitious as previous reading noted 147 instead of 97 & consumption of 13269.00 units.
It appears that a bill regarding Single phase Consumer ID 401909267, Prev.reading date 12.09.2017, Present Reading date:08.11.2018, billing date 16.01.2019, Previous Reading 47.00 units, Present Reading 13951.00, MF 1.00, Units Consumed 13904 (due). It thus implied that conversion of three phase to single phase was not actually done.
It also appears that single phase bill date 27.01.2019 for Consumer ID 401909267 started from 13951.00 units ending date 14117.00 units consumed 166 (quarterly) i.e 55.33 units per month, paid by the complainant.
The complainant wrote a letter to the O.P on 25.07.2018 for rectification of bill from the format of WBSEDCL for single phase ID 401909267 for the period July, August, September, 2018 & changes their damaged meter as soon as possible, received by the O.P’s office where it is noted that new single phase meter installed on 01.01.2018 showing “00000”. Reminder letter was issued on 26.12.2018 for raising in actual bills for single phase line for July 2017 to December 2018. Last & Final reminder dated 01.01.2019 for rectification of malafide bill (Print preview of generic ASCII) for the month of July.
It is not disputed that a challenge meter was installed by the O.P & the reading in existing single phase line meter and reading of challenge meter found same, in other words, the defect in single phase meter as alleged by the complainant do not stand.
The dispute rests on the sending of the bill for 16th months consumption 13269 units. Nobody can deny if any bill raised for 16th months consumption at a time, without raising the periodical bill, the tariff of consumed unit escalated to higher consumed unit slab. In other words, if O.P raised bill periodically i.e quarterly, the complainant should have been charged less amount, restricted only in respect of the consumption of three months & certainly tariff should be fixed on quarterly consumption.
The communication of the parties failed to resolve the dispute in spite of AC & EM’s reading/report dated 06.12.2018 as well as other actions taken on the part of the O.P or its agent.
Ld. Advocate for the O.Ps argued that the complainant was given opportunity to pay upon reading 13269 units in installments i.e 05 cycles for three months each (quarterly) & 06 cycles for a month. Except oral argument no document is produced to that effect, in other words, such argument has no force.
Under above facts and discussion, we subscribe same view with the complainant that it is the fault of computerized system of WBSEDCL and non-rectification by the service provider amounts to willful harassment of the consumer/complainant. We are also of the opinion that compensation of Rs.15,000/- for harassment and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- would be adequate, in addition to direction for rectification of disputed bill(s).
In the result the case succeeds.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
that the C.C-05/2019 be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.Ps.
We do direct the O.Ps to rectify the disputed bill(s) & generate/sent fresh bill and the complainant to pay/deposit the amount of fresh bill within stipulated date given therein.
We also do direct the O.Ps jointly & severally to pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation for harassment & litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- within one month from the date of order, failing which it shall carry simple interest @6% per annum till realization in full and the complainant will be at liberty to put the decree in execution.
Let a copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.
