Date of Filing : 09.01.2017 Date of Final Order : 31.08.2017
Sri Asish Kumar Senapati, President
This is an application u/s 12 of C.P. Act, 1986.
The gist of the complaint case is as follows:
One Nitai Chandra Kar (Complainant) is a consumer of electricity under the WBSEDCL since 06.05.2012 and he used to pay bills according to his consumption. In December, 2014 the OP sent a bill amounting to Rs.7,144.44 and the Complainant paid the said bill though it was excessive. Subsequently, the Complainant also paid two excessive bills. Lastly, on 17.09.16, the OP sent a bill amounting to Rs.3932/- showing consumption of 660 Units which was excessive, for which the Complainant met the Officer concerned and came to know that his electricity Meter was out of order probably since 10.09.15 and the bill had been prepared on the basis of average unit of his consumption. The Complainant tried to convince the official of the OP that the bill was excessive but they did not pay any heed to his request and they informed the Complainant in writing that his electricity would be disconnected for non-payment of the bill. The OP also sent another bill amounting to Rs.3,817.74 on 15.12.16 showing consumption of 627 units. The Complainant has prayed for compensation of Rs.1,10,000/- and also cost of litigation.
The OP put his appearance and filed w/v on 20.04.17 inter alia denying the material allegations made out in the Complaint, contending that the present case is not maintainable as there is no cause of action to file the case. It was the version of the OP that there was no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from the side of the OP. It is the case of the OP that the Complainant had service connection Being No.400131720 since 06.05.2012 and the OP used to prepare bill on the basis of consumption of units up to July, 2013, thereafter, the Meter was not accessible, for which the bill was prepared on estimation. Subsequently, the bill dated 27.12.2014 was prepared claiming 1169 units for the consumption period from 21.06.2014 to 14.12.2014 after taking physical Meter- reading and the Complainant has paid the said bill. The bill for the period from 02.06.15 to 01.10.15 was prepared on estimation as the door of the room of the Complainant was locked and subsequently, the Meter was found defective and the bills were prepared on the basis of average consumption which was justified and in accordance with rules. Therefore, the OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
On the basis of the above contentions, the following points are framed for adjudication of this case.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the Complainant Consumer as per provision under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?
- Has the O.P any deficiency in service, as alleged by the Complainant?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get any relief/reliefs, as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point No.1 & 2
Both the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience.
The Complainant has submitted that he is a consumer under the WBSEDCL and this Forum has territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. Ld. Agent for the OP did not raise any issue on those points.
On going through the claim petition, w/v and other materials on record and on a careful consideration and submission of both sides, we find that the Complainant is a consumer u/s 2(1)(d)(ii) of the CP Act, 1986 and this Forum has territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
Point No.3 & 4
Both the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and to avoid repetition. The Complainant has personally submitted that he is a bona-fide consumer of the WBSEDCL and is a consumer of electricity since 06.05.2012 and his bills were according to his consumption up to October, 2014 but subsequently, the OP sent a bill dated 14.12.2014 amounting to Rs.7,144.44 showing consumption of 1169 units. He argued that he paid the said bill along with two other exaggerated bills amounting to Rs.6,400/-. He also said that he raised objection for exaggerated bills but the OP again sent a bill on 17.09.2016 amounting to Rs.3,932 showing consumption of 660 units and on query, the OP informed him that the bill was prepared on the basis of average consumption and he would have to pay the bill amount as the electric Meter had been damaged. He contended that the OP threatened him that in case of failure to make payment of Rs.7,752/-, his electric line would be disconnected. He submitted that he has prayed for refund of Rs.10,000/-, Compensation of Rs.1 lakh for mental pain and agony and cost of this case against the OP. It was argued that his Meter Card being Sl.No.1236515 (Meter No.17195394) clearly shows “No Display” was noted on 10.09.201, if the bills were prepared on average basis, the bill amount could not be so exaggerated as claimed by the OP. He prayed for necessary order so that he might get proper relief.
In reply, Ld. Agent for the OP has submitted that the Complainant is a consumer under the OP and his Meter-reading was last noted on 08.06.15 when reading was 1765 after that, the Meter was found defective as there was no display for which the subsequent bills were prepared on average basis. It was submitted that the bills were computer generated and the computer took the highest amount of any bill during the period of calculation, as average. He prayed for passing necessary order.
On a careful consideration, it is clear from the Xerox copy of the Meter Card marked as Annexure “1” that on 10.09.15 it was noted “No Display”. It is the version of the OP that defective Meter was replaced on 05.05.17 by Meter No.T-0245601. The Meter Card showed that on 08.06.15, the Meter-reading was 1765 and it is also clear from the evidence on affidavit submitted by the OP. The OP did not take pain of calculation of average manually. The Ld. Agent for the OP had submitted that there is a procedure for billing for consumption of electricity in case of defective or defunct Meter as per 3.3 of Notification No.55/WBERC, Kolkata dated 07.08.2013 issued by West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission and published in the Kolkata Gazette on 07.08.2013. In the said notification, 3.6.1 reads as follows:
“If, on inspection by the distribution licensee on its own or on the basis of a complaint of a consumer, the meter of a consumer is found defective or defunct for a reason other than theft of electricity as provided in section 135 of the Act and no theft of energy can be reasonably suspected, the consumer shall pay provisionally, for such consumption of electricity for the period during which the meter has been suspected to have been defective or defunct, on the basis of average consumption and other parameters for the preceding and/or succeeding three months or during any previous and/or subsequent period that be reasonably comparable before the meter has been found to be defective or defunct. If, however, the period during which the meter has been defective or defunct cannot be ascertained, such period shall be limited to a period of three months immediately preceding the date of inspection.”
In the present case, the disputed bills were related with the period when the Meter was found defective. The Meter-card showed that on 10.09.15 it was noted “No Display” and it is clear from the version of the OP that new Meter was replaced on 05.05.17. Therefore, there was dispute that the bills prepared after the units consumed 1765 till replacement of new Meter on 05.05.17 were prepared on average basis. According to the Notification issued by the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission dated 07.08.13, the bill for consumption of electricity in case of defective or defunct Meter shall be made on the basis of average consumption and other parameters for the preceding/or succeeding 3 months or during any previous and/or subsequent period that be reasonably comparable before the meter has been found to be defective or defunct.
Considering the said Notification and the submission of both sides, this Forum finds valid reason to hold that the bills prepared by the OP during the period when the electric Meter of the Complainant was defective were prepared wrongly without abiding by the principles laid down in the Notification of the WBERC dated 07.08.13. It is nothing but deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Therefore, the Complainant is entitled to get relief against the OP. We think that the OP may be directed to prepare bills afresh during the period when the Meter was defective/defunct on the basis of average as per Notification No.55/WBERC dated 07.08.13 , subject to adjustment of any amount if already paid for the said period by the Complainant. The OP may also be directed to pay Rs.2,000/- to the Complainant as compensation for mental pain and agony and Rs.1,000/- as cost of litigation.
Reasons for Delay: The case was filed on 09.01.17 and w/v was filed on 20.04.17. The OP received the copy of Notice on 28.01.17 but the case could not be disposed off within 3 months as per Section 13(3A) of the CP Act, 1986 in spite of the fact that this Forum had taken endeavour to decide the complaint as expeditiously as possible. The day to day orders will speak for itself regarding delay in disposal of this case.
In the result, the CC No.4/17 succeeds. Fees paid are correct.
Hence,
it is ordered
That the Complaint Case be and the same is hereby allowed in part on contest against the O.P with cost of Rs.1,000/-.
The OP is directed to prepare bills afresh against the Service Connection No.400131720 during the period when the earlier Meter was defunct/defective subject to adjustment of any amount if already paid by the Complainant for the said period by 45 days from the date of this order by allowing not less than 15 days’ time to the Complainant to make payment of the bills. The OP is also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as compensation for mental pain and agony and Rs.1,000/- as litigation cost to the Complainant by 45 days from the date of this order.
The OP is hereby directed to comply the aforesaid order within 45 days from this date, failing which the OP shall pay Rs.50/- for each day’s delay and the said accumulated amount shall be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account.
Let a copy of the final order be made available and be supplied free of cost to the concerned party/Ld. Advocate by hand/Registered Post with A/D forthwith for information and necessary action as per Rules. The copy of this Final order will also be available in the following website :
confonet.nic.in
Dictated and corrected by me.
