Name of the Complainant(s) Name of the Opposite party/parties

Rejaul Karim Mondal. Station Manager,

S/O Late Azahar Mondal, Amtala Group Electric Supply,

P.O.Shyamnagar, P.S. Nawda, P.O.& P.S. Nowda, Dist. Murshidabad.

Dist. Murshidabad.

PRESENT
1. Shri G. M. Midhya - President

2. Smt. P. Ali - Member

3. Shri T. K. Biswas - Member

JUDGMENT

The petitioner’s case, in brief, is that he a consumer of electricity under the OP. Since inception of his service connection he has been coming on remitting the bills regularly. All on a sudden, a bill amounting to Rs.13, 700.00 came in his name and in the said bill it was mentioned that Rs.8, 685.00 had been remaining outstanding as due also. On scrutiny it was found that the office of the OP prepared double meter reading card in the single name of the petitioner wherein the consumer numbers were mentioned differently. The petitioner requested the OP to remedy the error but nothing was done; rather his connection was disconnected on 28.02.2009. Subsequently, the petitioner was compelled to deposit Rs.7, 692.00 and thereafter, on 16.06.2009 his service connection was restored. The act of the OP is arbitrary and there is deficiency in service on his part. Hence, this case.



The petitioner prayed for direction upon the OP to draw the bill correctly as per actual consumption of the meter reading and cancellation of the bill in question.



The OP contested the case by filing written version wherein the allegations of the petitioner have been clearly denied. It is the simple submission of the OP that the petitioner did not pay energy bills at all for a long time and so his service connection was disconnected on 20.2.2009,. He prayed for payment of outstanding dues by instalments and so he was allowed to deposit Rs.7, 642.00 out of Rs.22, 863.00 on 17.06.2009. A sum of Rs.15, 221.00 still remains due from the petitioner. His petition is liable to be dismissed with cost.



We have heard the petitioner in person on his behalf and Ld. G.P. on behalf of the OP. Xerox Copy of some previous bills, the impugned bill and also xerox copies of bills for six months previous to the impugned period have been filed by the petitioner. Copies of correspondences have also been filed by him. On the other hand, the OP side has filed meter reading card in respect of Service Connection No.D/1403 standing in the name of the petitioner, Rejaul Karim Mandal.



After hearing both sides and examining the documents minutely, there is reason to believe that the grievances of the petitioner are not unjustified. In the bills of April to June, 2001, July to September, 01 etc. consumer number of the petitioner has been mentioned as F-740696. Again, another bill has been charged for self-same period i.e. July to September, 01 where consumer number of the petitioner has been mentioned as F-740680. The period of consumption in both those bills has been shown from April to June,01. Therefore, again the OP denied that there has been irregularity in his department. The impugned bill relates to the period for the consumption from October to December, 07 during which the total monthly consumption has been shown as 2600. The bills for some months previous to the impugned clearly show that the concerned meter was duly raised and bills were drawn as per meter reading. In no cases, the units exceeded 551 in three months. The meter reading of the Op corroborates it. There is no justification or explanation as to how and why reading of the impugned bill became 2600 units. Palpably, it is unjustified. Such bill should be rectified in the analogy of average consumption during last six months. The outstanding amount has shown in the said bill cannot be confirmed unless dues by the petitioner is shown with break-ups containing actual meter reading. Under the circumstances, the case of the petitioner succeeds

Hence,

O R D E R E D
That Consumer Complaint No.100/2009 be and the same is allowed on contest. The impugned bill for Rs.13, 401.00 together with outstanding amount of Rs.8, 685.00 as shown therein be cancelled. The OP is directed to draw bill for the said bill on the basis of average consumption made during the last six months of the period of impugned bill. Payment made by the petitioner in the meantime shall be adjusted accordingly.