W B S E B vs Prabir Kumar Koley

THIS appeal has arisen out of the judgment passed by the District Forum, Howrah, on 29.4.2003 in the Case No. 70/2001, wherein the Forum below has allowed the case in part on contest but without cost and directed the complainant to pay Rs. 2,000/ - per month for 49 months and the remaining amount of Rs. 99,536/ - at the 50th instalments. The first instalment would be payable in the month of June, 2003 and thereafter the balance instalments would be paid in subsequent months consecutively. The O.P. was directed not to claim any delayed payment surcharges or interest upon the amount of 99,536/ - from the complainant.

THE brief facts of the case of the complainant before the Forum were that being a consumer under the O.P. - WBSEB the complainant used to pay the electric bills regularly. Since installation the meter showed reading in 4 figure units. The meter reader regularly took the meter reading and noted it in the meter card. On 26.12.2000 the complainant applied for extension of his load and which was duly received by the O.P. On 22.2.2001 a five figure reading was noted in the meter card i.e., 68769 while on 7.2.2001 the reading was noted by the meter reader as 6866 and on 6.3.2001 the reading was noted as 69169. During the time of sudden inspection the O.P. noted that the reading was of five digit units. Thereafter the complainant was served a bill for a sum of Rs. 99,536/ - and asked to pay the amount by 15.3.2001 to avoid disconnection. The revised bill calculation shows a chargeable unit of 43230 units and 600 units unmetered consumption per month for 72 months and delayed payment surcharge. The complainant approached the O.P. on several occasions for clarifications but the O.P. did not pay heed to his request. Thereafter the complainant filed the case before the Forum praying for direction upon the O.P. to grant him instalment in payment and not to disconnect the electric line. The complainant had also prayed for compensation of Rs. 1 lacs. Being dissatisfied with the above mentioned order the WBSEB -appellant has preferred the present appeal before this Commission. The learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the meter reader of the WBSEB had mistaken noted the meter reading as four figure units for 72 months. During the time of inspection it was detected that the meter reader had done it mistakenly. It is further submitted by the appellant that as the respondent consumed energy he has to pay the entire unpaid amount along with the delayed payment surcharge at a time. The Forum has no power to grant instalments against the legitimate claim of the Board. According to the appellant the judgment passed by the Forum below is erroneous, unjust and liable to be set aside.

ON careful perusal of the order passed by the Forum below and hearing the submission of both parties it is noticed by us that being a consumer under the WBSEB the respondent was never a defaulter. The meter reader regularly inspected the meter and noted the reading in the meter card. The meter reader noted 4 figure units since inception. But while the respondent applied for extension of his load the appellant inspected the site all of a sudden. The appellant detected that four figure units were noted in the meter card by the meter reader in every month, but actually the figure was of five digits. The meter reader of the appellant had mistakenly noted the four digits for 72 months. After detection of the mistake of their own the appellant issued a bill for Rs. 99,536/ - upon the respondent and directed to pay the bill within seven days. The respondent requested the appellant to clarify the bill but to no effect. We have noticed that the respondent had admitted that the figure of 4 digits unit was noted for 72 months mistakenly by the meter reader. During the time of inspection the respondent was present and he found that actually the figure was of five digits. Regarding payment of the electric bill the appellants version is that as the respondent consumed the energy he has to pay the aforesaid amount along with the delayed payment surcharge. The respondent prayed for granting him instalments to the appellant but the appellant did not pay any heed to his request. We have also noticed that after hearing the both sides the Forum below has passed a well reasoned order with which we are not inclined to interfere.

THE respondent shall pay the first instalment in the month of February, 2005 and thereafter the balance instalments shall be paid in subsequent months consecutively. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed on contest but however without any cost. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. Appeal dismissed.