C E S C LIMITED Vs. KRISHNADHAN NAG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal arising out of an impugned judgment passed by the District Forum, Howrah, dated 30.6.2000. The case of the complainant in brief is that he is a consumer of the CESC Ltd. The consumption of energy through his meter since 1990 was 70-75 units on an average per month. His meter was changed by the CESC Ltd. for several times, but the last one also was defective and the CESC raised the electricity bill on average basis. He alleged that the bill for 11/99 for Rs.3,515/- had shown consumption of 866 units without showing the meter reading in the bill. In 12/99 bill the consumption shown of 858 units, but till today the present pending is 0018, which was inspected by the CESC people. This meter had been changed by the CESC on 4.9.1999 admitting that the previous meter was defective. The initial meter reading of the present meter was 0018, but even now the reading remained the same. So the O. P. has placed a dead meter in place of a defective meter. He made complaint on 7.12.1999, but his request was not heeded to in regard to inflated bill. For this reason he filed the case before the District Forum.

(2.) In its judgment the Forum below directed the CESC to replace the defective meter by a standard meter within a period of eight weeks from the date of the order and it was further directed to ascertain the consumption of previous disputed bills on the basis of the consumption of units of energy for the period of six months from the date of the replacement of the defective meter and to raise fresh bills month by month for the period from 21.5.1998 to the date of replacement of the existing defective meter by a new one. The excess payment, if any, made by the complainant shall be adjusted to the benefit of the complainant from the total amount of the bills. The complainant shall pay the bills as would be raised for the consumption after the replacement of the defective meter. Admissible rebate also be given in the fresh bills to be raised as per the order.

(3.) Being aggrieved by the order of the Forum below the CESC has preferred this appeal before the Commission. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits in the memo of appeal that the meter in question was not defective since 21.5.1998. The bills were raised on its previous pattern of consumption and hence the bills were raised on provisional units as per past pattern of consumption. It is further stated by the appellant that from 21.5.1998 to till date the respondent (herein) should pay the bills as raised and in case of any doubt, the billing dispute may be referred to the Electrical Inspector for adjudication.