IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BANKURA.
Proceeding Case NO.13 of 2005.
Sri Sayantan Gorai, s/o Late Nemai Gorai, Resident of Pratap Bagan,
P.O. & P.S. & Dist. Bankura.
……………….Complainant.
V e r s u s
1. Station Manager / Station Superintendent, W.B.S.E.B., Schooldanga
Sector, P.O., P.S. & Dist. Bankura.
2. West Bengal State Electricity Board represented by / it’s Secretary
Bidyut Bhawan, Salt Lake City, Kolkata.
……….…….Opposite Party.
Present :-
T. Basu. (President).
P.K.Mukhopadhyay. (Member).
A.Agnihotri. (Member).
Judgement : Dated 30.06.2009.
The present case was initiated on the basis of a petition of complaint filed in this Forum by one Sayantan Gorai, a resident of Protap Bagan, P.O., P.S, & Dist. Bankura against the O.P. W.B.S.E.B. with an allegation of deficiency in service.
In short, the case of the Complainant, as made out in the petition of complaint, is that his father Nimai Gorai was a consumer under the O.P. having Consumer No.C090830 / Service Connection No.B3873/D-72. After the demise of Nimai Gorai the present Complainant is enjoying the electric energy through the aforesaid service connection in the same premises. He is a regular payee of electric bills and his consumption of power is nominal and the bills never exceeded Rs.500/- a month. He received a bill for the consumption period from January, 2005 to March, 2005 demanding a sum of Rs.18,358/- only. According to the Complainant, this bill is fictitious, wrong and not-based on actual consumption of energy. Further case of the Complainant is that as the meter was moving very fast, complaint was lodged before the O.P. no.1 with request to replace the meter by a new one. O.P. no.1 did not consider it proper to pay heed to such request. In the result, the Complainant is highly prejudiced and hence this case with prayer for proper relief.
On getting notice, issued by the Forum, the O.P. no.1 appeared and filed written version and contested the case. O.P. denied the allegations made against him. According to the O.P., the case is not maintainable as the Complainant is not a consumer of W.B.S.E.B.. Of course, his father was a consumer but he is dead now. Name of the present Complainant is not there in the record of W.B.S.E.B. as a consumer. The meter in the premises of the Petitioner was checked by the competent staff of the O.P. office on 19.03.2004 and the same was found in order. The disputed bill was prepared on the basis of actual consumption, as recorded in the meter. It is added by the O.P. that such bill was prepared as per applicable norms and procedure of the W.B.S.E.B.. During inspection, normal consumption of electricity was found. According to the O.P., the average daily consumption of energy was 15kwh and naturally the average monthly and quarterly consumption of energy was 450 and 1350kwh respectively. On 21.09.2004 the reading was 00752 and on 18.12.2004 the reading was 04726 and as such, the bill for consumption of 3974 units was raised for billing period from January, 2005 to March, 2005. Thereafter, in the written version the gadget-wise average daily consumption was estimated and calculated by the O.P. and it has been shown that average daily consumption of energy was 15kwh. To sum up the contention, the bill for Rs.18, 358/- was just, correct and valid and hence the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief and consequently, the case is liable to be dismissed.
The points of dispute between the parties are to be considered in the perspective of the evidence on record. It is to be ascertained if there was any deficiency in service from the side of the contesting O.P. and if so, what relief the Complainant is entitled to.
Decision with reasons.
Although opportunity was given, the parties were not inclined to adduce any verbal evidence. They, in support of their respective cases, relied upon the documentary evidence only.
At the very outset, let us take up the question raised by the O.P. relating to the status of the Complainant / Petitioner. Reiterating the same, we mention that the O.P. challenges the status of the
Complainant to file the present case. O.P. contends that the Complainant is not a consumer as per the definition of the word as noted in section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. We have considered this point carefully. What we find is that admittedly the name of the Complainant is not there in the office record of the O.P.. It is also not suppressed by the Complainant. O.P. too admits that the father of the Complainant was a “Consumer” under him. His death is also not challenged. As the son of the deceased consumer the present Complainant is / was enjoying electric energy through the very same service connection in the very same premises. It is significant to note that having full knowledge of this fact, bill amount was, from time to time, received by the O.P. from the Complainant. It clearly indicates that the O.P. virtually recognized his status as a consumer. Position being such, it cannot not be said that the present Complainant / Petitioner is totally dislodged. Of course, it is true that the Petitioner ought to have taken proper step for change of name in respect of the service connection which still stands in the name of his deceased father. With such observation we hope that proper step will be taken by the Petitioner as early as possible. This point is decided in favour of the Complainant.
Next, the point for limitation was not urged by the O.P.. Yet this point was examined by us and we have got no doubt that the case was filed within the prescribed period of limitation, as envisaged under section 24(A) of the Consumer Protection Act.
Now, we pass on to the pivotal question relating to bill amount for the period from January, 2005 to March, 2005. The amount is to the tune of Rs.18,358/- only. Here lies the main point of dispute between the parties. As per the contention of the Complainant, the demand of the O.P. was excessive, having no parity and uniformity with the previous bills while according to the O.P., the bill was correctly prepared and Complainant is under obligation to clear up the dues. On point of basis of the bill, contradictory statements have been made by the O.P., as it appears from the written version. To make the point clear let us refer to the paragraph nos. 6,7,9,11 & 13 of the written version. Once it has been said that the bill was prepared on the basis of actual consumption of energy as was indicated in the meter (paragraph 6 of written version). Soon thereafter the gadget-wise average daily consumption has been estimated and it is contended that estimated daily consumption of energy was 15kwh and consequently the average monthly and quarterly consumption of energy was 450 and 1350 respectively (paragraph 7 and 11 in the written version). It was again said that the “bill was prepared as per applicable norms and procedure of the W.B.S.E.B. as per meter reading” (paragraph 9 in the written version). The whole matter, therefore, appears to be confusing and misleading. As such, it is getting difficult for us to ascertain the actual mode through which the questioned bill was prepared. The Complainant produced the copy of the yellow card issued by the O.P.. As we find, it bears one and single entry dated 19.03.2004 and the reading, as noted therein, is “00002”. We do not know why the other readings do not find place in the Card. The reason may be known to the O.P. only. The copy of the Blue Card was produced by the O.P. and there are many noting of meter reading from time to time. It is true that the reading for the relevant period tallies with the notings made in the disputed bill itself. But the big question here is why such notings of meter reading are not there in the Card in custody of the Consumer. It was the duty and obligation of the O.P. to get the same noting entered in the Yellow Card as well so that the consumer can get clear picture of the actual consumption of energy during the period. It has been clearly and categorically stated by the O.P. that the demand was made on the basis of actual consumption of electric energy as was indicated in the meter. It may not be incorrect to say that entries made in the Blue Card are unilateral acts on the part of the O.P. having no nexus with the Yellow Card of the Consumer. Here lies the laches of the O.P., so also the deficiency in service. Abrupt rise in consumption, therefore, cannot be accepted as just and proper. It is significant to note that sudden rise in bill amount is not nominal, the rise appears to be an exorbitant one. As we have already indicated earlier, the O.P. has failed to justify this abrupt rise in the bill amount particularly in absence of any entry in the Yellow Card which lies in the custody of the Consumer. O.P. ought to have made entries in both Yellow and Blue Cards simultaneously to establish clear and transparent deal. O.P. was rather duty-bound to do so which he practically failed to do. It gives birth to confusion which runs against the interest of the Consumer.
Considering the relevant aspects, we are of the opinion that the conduct of the O.P. was not transparent and proper. Demand was made by the O.P. keeping material facts away from the Complainant. The impugned bill does not appear to be reasonable and so, the same is liable to be cancelled and the O.P. is to prepare fresh bill for the relevant period on the basis of average units of preceding six months.
Case succeeds and the Complainant is entitled to get relief. According, it is
Ordered
That the present case is allowed on contest without any order as to cost. The bill dated 01.01.2005 demanding Rs.18,358/- only hereby stands cancelled. O.P. to prepare fresh bill on the basis of average units of preceding six months.
The amount of Rs.9,200/-, already deposited by the Complainant on 31.03.2005 vide receipt no.C/B/03-04 – 018501 against the disputed bill under order of the Forum, be adjusted with the future bills as early as possible.
Copies of this judgement and order be supplied to the parties free of cost.
Tags: W.B.S.E.B