Dt. of filing- 08/03/2018
Dt. of Judgement- 09/10/2018
Mrs. Sashi Kala Basu, President
This petition of complaint is filed by Sri Tarun Kumar Mitra under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties namely 1) Deputy Manager (CESC Ltd), 2) Grievance Redressal Officers (CESC Ltd) and 3) The Chief Executive Engineer (Internal) (CESC Ltd).
Brief fact of the complaint case is that Complainant is a bonafide holder and consumer of a meter, domestic type being consumer no.11322106025 and consumer Id no.11001453863 with the Opposite Party. After due and proper inspection Opposite Party provided the Complainant with the said separate meter in respect of his undivided share in his concerned premises. The Complainant’s normal average bill ranges from Rs.400/- to Rs.600/- only per month. But surprisingly Opposite Party started sending bills for high aggravated amount against low units consumed and claiming the same alleged arrears on his part. Complainant approached the concerned officers to amend and rectify the bill but they did not pay any heed instead they disconnected the Complainant’s electric supply. However they restored the same stating that there was some misunderstanding. But yet again Opposite Party started sending the Complainant, bills more specifically “Green Bills” which stand for due bills, for huge amount citing alleged arrears. They are sending notice of disconnection along with the said green bills.
Complainant sent a notice through his Ld. Advocate dt.8/2/2018 requesting Opposite Parties to stop sending such atrocious bills and to provide the Complainant with proper statement of account and not to disrupt electric supply but Opposite Party is still continuously threatening the Complainant with immediate disconnection. So this case is filed by the Complainant for directing Opposite Parties not to disrupt Complainant’s concerned legal electric supply to rectify the alleged bills and to send proper bills as per actual consumption, to pay compensation and litigation cost.
Complainant annexed the documents i.e. offer letter dated 24/09/2015, electric bills from January, 2017 to January, 2018 consolidated bill, Discharge Summary of Birla Hospital and a notice dated 8/2/2018 sent by the Complainant to OPs through his Ld. Advocate.
Opposite Parties initially contested the case by filing a written version denying and disputing the material allegations made by the Complainant. It is contended that on inspection of the premises, it was found that there was another meter in the same premises being no.3268060 under consumer no.11322106007 standing in the name of one S. Mitra which was disconnected on 25/08/2015 due to non-payment of electricity bills for the period from February, 2015 to August, 2015 and outstanding bill was Rs.13,590.81 paise.
During inspection it also transpired that the Complainant was a beneficiary of the said disconnected meter being no.3268060 and the said fact was suppressed by the Complainant at the time of application for new meter in his name. Complainant is duty bound to pay the said dues Thus the OPs prayed for dismissal of this case with cost.
It may however be mentioned here that since 24/05/2018 the date fixed in this case, OPs did not take any step and thus vide order dated 07/06/2018, case proceeded ex-parte against the Opposite Parties.
During the course of evidence, Complainant filed examination-in-chief on affidavit and thereafter argument was heard on behalf of the Complainant. A brief note of argument has also been filed by the Complainant.
So the point requires determination is :-
- Whether the Complainant is a consumer?
- Whether there is any deficiency in providing service on the part of the Opposite Parties?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?
Decision with reasons
Point No.1
Complainant apparently hired the service of the Opposite Parties for supply of electric energy to his residential premises and thus is a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of sec 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
This point is answered accordingly.
Point no.2 & 3
Both these points are taken up together for a comprehensive discussion.
It is an admitted fact that the Complainant applied for a meter in his undivided share in the premises and on inspection by the Opposite Parties, of the premises , a separate meter was installed in the name of the Complainant on payment of requisite fee/charge on 30/09/2015. Complainant’s consumer no. is 11322106025 and customer Id is 11001458363.
The real dispute arose from the month of April, 2017 onwards. Before that Complainant had been paying the bills as per his actual consumption of unit and it ranged from Rs.400/- to Rs.600/- per month. Electric bill for the month of April, 2017 was of Rs.15,720/-for May Rs.16,520, June Rs.14,160…….etc. These bills were sent with the notice of disconnection for non-payment of arrear bill. These bills indicate that the amount of Rs.459/- for February, Rs.640/- for the month of March, Rs.945/- for the month of April, Rs.2,930/- for the month of May, Rs.600/- in July, Rs.1910 in August, Rs.1,000/- in September and Rs.680/- paid by the Complainant were accepted by the Opposite Parties. However it is the main contention of the Opposite Parties that there was a meter in the said premises earlier in the name of one S. Mitra being no.3268060 under consumer no.11322106007 and it was disconnected on 25/08/2015 due to non-paymentof electricity bills for the period of February, 2015 to August, 2015 and outstanding bill was Rs.13,590.81p. So the said outstanding amount was debited to the April, 2017 account bill of Complainant. But in support of their contention that such an amount was due and Complainant was also a beneficiary in the electric meter in the name of S. Mitra, no document has been filed by the Opposite Parties. No evidence is adduced by the Opposite Parties.
It is strange that before installing the meter in the name of Complainant, Opposite Parties did make an inspection of the premises. So they ought to have known from their record about any outstanding in respect of any meter in the same premises and whether the Complainant was a beneficiary to it. But for the reasons best known to them, Opposite parties realized it after two years of the installation of the meter, in the name of the Complainant.
It is stated by the Complainant in the complaint as well as in his examination-in-chief on affidavit that the Opposite Parties cannot shift the burden of payment of someone else’s arrear upon him and that the alleged high bills that the Opposite Parties are sending to him are made up by the Opposite Parties. There is no contrary evidence before this Forum to the above mentioned statement of the Complainant. We have already highlighted that the Opposite Parties have not filed any document either with the written version or during evidence.
So in view of the discussion as highlighted above, Complainant is entitled to a direction upon the Opposite Parties to rectify the alleged bills showing arrear and a direction not to disrupt the Complainant’s electric supply. But in the given facts and situation of this case, no compensation is awarded. However since Complainant is compelled to file this case he is entitled to an amount of Rs.20,000/- as litigation cost.
These points are thus answered accordingly.
Hence,
ORDERED
CC/114/2018 is allowed ex-parte against the Opposite Parties. Opposite Parties are directed to rectify the bills showing arrear from April, 2017 onwards and to send the proper bills to the Complainant as per his actual consumption within three months from the date of this order. Opposite Parties are further directed to pay Rs.20,000/- towards litigation cost within the aforesaid period of three months in default interest @ 8% p.a. shall carry on the said amount till its realization.
Opposite Parties are further directed not to disrupt the Complainant’s concerned electric supply by way of disconnection on the ground of non-payment of alleged arrear amount of Rs.13, 590.81Paise.
