WBSEB vs MAJI ENGINEERING

-THIS is an appeal arising against the judgment passed by the District Forum, Howrah. The case of the complainant in brief is stated hereunder. The complainant, Sri Swapan Kumar Maji, is the proprietor of a firm, having electricity supplied by WBSEB and that is controlled by one industrial meter and one commercial meter. All of a sudden the O.P. sent a supplementary bill for the period from 25.7.1997 to 21.12.1998 for Rs. 9,487.06 though the complainant had already paid the bills for the same period. He sent a protest letter to the O.P., who failed to respond to that letter. Thereafter the O.P. sent a bill for the industrial meter on an average basis for Rs. 46,087.47. The complainant alleges that both the commercial and industrial bills are illegal and arbitrary. He is disputing the correctness of these bills and made several requests to the O.P. for replacement of both the meters which are defective but the O.P. did nothing. For this reason the complainant filed a case before the Forum praying for adjudication of the disputed bills (commercial and industrial bills) and for a direction upon the O.P. to waive the supplementary bill and the overcharged units for both industrial and commercial connections.

IN its judgment the Forum cancelled the bills excepting the bills raised by the O.P. for consumption of energy for domestic purpose by connecting of the industrial line with the domestic line for the erstwhile service connection at the rate of 350 units of energy per month on the average for the period from September 1998 to May 1999 and directed that fresh bills amount shall be payable by the complainant within the due date as would be indicated in that fresh bill. It is further ordered that the defective meter be replaced within a month from the date of the order. Being dissatisfied with the order the appellant-WBSEB has preferred this appeal before the commission. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the present respondent-Maji Engineering is not the registered consumer of the appellant-WBSEB and it has not locus standi to file the case before the Forum. M/s. Puspa Vishmani is the registered consumer of the WBSEB. M/s. Puspa Vishmani is consuming electricity for domestic purpose through the industrial meter. The appellant denied that the respondent is a beneficiary of registered consumer M/s. Puspa Vishmani. The respondent did not send any application to the WBSEB office for changing the name of the erstwhile consumer and to insert the name of the present respondent. As there is no separate agreement between the present respondents and the WBSEB, the present respondent is not a consumer according to the law.

The learned Counsel for the respondent submits by filing a written argument that it purchased sold the property of M/s. Puspa Vishmani by a registered Deed of Sale dated 21.7.1989. It is mentioned in that Deed that the purchaser shall be entitled to get the electricity meter standing in the name of Puspa Vishmani and since then Swapan Maji is consuming electricity from the meter standing in the name of Puspa Vishmani and paying bills regularly. The respondent is a beneficiary of supply of electricity with the approval of all the legal heirs of Puspa Vishmani. It is submitted by the respondent that both the meters are defective and in case of defective meter only CEI can assess the consumption, but they did not refer the said meters to the CEI for assessment.

WE have carefully perused all the papers and documents and noticed that M/s. Puspa Vishmani is the recorded consumer of WBSEB. M/s. Puspa Vishmani sold its property to Sri Paresh Chandra Maji and Smt. Menoka Maji, the parents of Swapan Maji by a registered deed of sale dated 21.7.89. But no application was made to the appellant from the respondent''s end for changing the name of the erstwhile consumer and for recording the name of Maji engineering as consumer. During hearing the respondent submits that it is agreeable to pay provisionally 50% of the disputed bills. The appellant does not seriously object to this. Accordingly we are of the opinion that the respondent may be directed to provisionally deposit 50% amount of the disputed bills before referring the disputed bills and meters to the CEI, W.B. for adjudication. Going by the forgoing discussion we deemed it appropriate to pass the following order.

THE appellant shall raise a provisional supplementary bill charging 50% of the total amount of the disputed bills within 15 days of receipt of a copy of this order. THE respondent shall pay this provisional bill. Simultaneously the respondent will approach the appellant and take necessary steps for changing the name of the consumer i.e., for replacing M/s. Puspa Vishmani by the present respondent (Maji Engineering) as consumer. On completion of all formalities, the appellant will recognize the present respondent as consumer in place of the erstwhile consumer M/s. Puspa Vishmani. The appellant shall replace the defective meter by a new one within 15 days of the payment of the aforesaid amount. The cost of the new meter will be borne by the respondent. The defective meter and the adjudication of the bill amount to be paid finally are to be referred to the CEI, West Bengal. The cost of testing the meter will be borne by the appellant. CEI would do well to dispose of the matter expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of reference. Be it mentioned that the decision of the CEI will be binding on both the parties regarding the balance amount, if any to be paid for the disputed period and the defective nature of the meter. The appeal is allowed on contest in part and the Forum''s order is modified as discussed above. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. Appeal partly allowed.