Mrs. S. Majumder, Member—The appeal is directed against the order dated 20.12.2002 whereby the Forum ordered to set aside the bills dated 3.9.2001 for 300 units and the bill dated 29.11.2001 for 186 units. The Forum also directed the WBSEB to raise fresh bill for those two periods at the rate of 70 units per quarter without charging any amount further, but assuring adjustment of the excess realisation and payment in subsequent bill/bills. The Forum further ordered to pay interest at the rate of 8% p.a. on the amount of excess payment and realisation on the basis of those two bills dated 3.9.2001 and 29.11.2001. The Forum also imposed a cost of Rs. 100/- on the present appellant (WBSEB).

2 Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of the Forum the appellant has preferred this appeal before this Commission. The appellant submits that on its own calculation the Forum set aside the bills dated 3.9.2001 and 29.11.2001. The appellant also submits that the Forum failed to appreciate that the defect in the meter was detected on 24.3.1994, but the same could not be changed on account of non-availability of the meters. The bills were raised only on average basis. It is also submited by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the Forum has no authority to minimize the bills of its own at the rate of 70 units per quarter. The appellant (WBSEB) prays before this Commissions that the matter ought to have been referred to CEI, West Bengal for proper adjudication and the respondent should have been directed to pay the bills without prejudice according to law. WBSEB also urges this Commission to set aside the cost of Rs. 100/-.

3. The respondent did not file any written objection, but at the time of hearing he was present personally. He submits that he is a bona fide consumer of WBSEB bearing consumer No. 117034 and current meter No. ME027314. His earlier defective meter was replaced by the present new meter on 12.12.2001. But during that period from 20.8.2001 to 11.12.2001 WBSEB raised fictitious and excessive bills. He raised objections against such inflated bills before WBSEB, but those objections did not yield any result. Though the above bills were on the higher side, but he had already paid all the bills. He also made a complaint against the defective meter and prayed for a new meter in lieu of that defective meter in question. But WBSEB could not instal a new meter. His allegation is that the above mentioned disputed bills were raised against that defective meter in question. He submits that the defective meter in question had been changed by a new one on 12.12.2001.

4. On careful perusal of the papers we notice that the respondent is a bona fide consumer of WBSEB having no outstanding dues regarding payment of electric bills and there is no single incident of disconnection. It is an admitted fact that his earlier meter became defective in 1994 and he lodged a complaint before WBSEB and applied for a new meter. But according to the appellant the same could not be changed on account of non-availability of the meter. Both the parties are of the opinion that the earlier defective meter was replaced by the present new meter on 12.12.2001. The respondent alleged that during the period from 20.8.2001 to 11.12.2001 when that delective meter was in its position, he received two excessive and ficticious bills though he made the payments. After the payment of above mentioned disputed bills he filed the case before the Forum. We find that those two bills were raised against the defective meter as the new meter was installed on 12.12.2001. After the installation of the new meter he is getting correct bills and he has no allegation against this new meter. From the Forum’s order we notice that on its own the Forum calculated the disputed bills dated 3.8.2001 for 300 units and 29.11.2001 for 186 units and directed WBSEB to raise fresh bills at the rate of 70 units per quarter. Learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently opposes it and