Back
WEST BENGAL STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Shyamal Gupta and Utpal Kumar Bhattacharya, Members
MANAGING DIRECTOR, CESC LTD. - Appellant
Versus
AMIT SEN GUPTA - Respondent
First Appeal No. 471 of 2014
Decided on : 02-04-2018
Consumer rights and the need for compliance with relevant standards and regulatory directives in ensuring fair dealings and service to consumers.
Headnote:
Faulty Meters - Consumer Rights - I.E. Rules, 1956, Central Electricity Authority (Installation and Operation of Meters) Regulations, 2006 - The court discussed the excessive billing due to faulty meters, the compliance of meters with relevant standards, and the flouting of Regulatory directives by the OPs. The court also emphasized the sufferings of the complainants and enhanced the quantum of compensation.
Fact of the Case:
The complaint revolves around alleged installation of faulty meters at the residence of the Complainants, leading to excessive billing. The OPs admitted the excessive meter reading but quantified it differently from the Complainants' claim.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Complainants were victims of excess billing due to faulty meters and that the OPs faltered in rendering due service. The court also addressed the dispute over reduction in the rate of interest in respect of CRES deposits.
Issues: Excessive billing due to faulty meters, compliance with regulatory directives, reduction in the rate of interest in respect of CRES deposits.
Ratio Decidendi: The OPs cannot disown due liability for excessive billing, and the sufferings of the complainants due to faulty meters are highly condemnable. The court also emphasized the need for compliance with relevant standards and regulatory directives.
Final Decision: The Appeals were allowed in part, and the impugned order was modified to enhance the quantum of compensation for the complainants.
ORDER
Shyamal Gupta, Member
1. Both these Appeals emanate out of the Order dated 18-03-2014 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Kolkata, Unit-II (Central) in CC/146/2013, whereof the complaint has been allowed. Since the bone of contention of these Appeals are same, they are disposed of through this common order.
2. The complaint revolves over alleged installation of faulty meters at the residence of the Complainants. It is alleged that ever since service connection has been provided by the OPs, i.e., on 10-06-1999, the Complainants have always been at the receiving ends, thanks to installation of faulty meters. On the basis of their complaints, although meters have been replaced, there has been no improvement to the situation. The meter was lastly replaced by the OPs on 17-06-2009. Despite such replacement, the meter was over-registering energy consumption and the OPs too admitted such fact. However, they quantified such excessive reading at 4.89%; whereas, according to the Complainants, it should be 19%. Further allegation of the Complainants is that, the OPs by issuing a back-dated letter dated 27-05-2013, changed the interest rate in respect of CRES deposits illegally from 9.50% to 6%. Hence, this complaint.
3. By submitting a WV, the OPs submitted that most of the allegations raised by the Complainants have already been redressed. It is stated that when the Complainants disputed accuracy of the meter for the first time, it was examined and found to be in order. The said meter was further tested against a check meter installed from 22-01-2005 to 31-01-2005, when it was found over-registering by 2.08%, a deviation which was within the permissible limit of error as per Sec. 57 of the I.E. Rules, 1956, applicable at that point of time. Yet, as per the order of the Ld. Ombudsman the existing meter was changed. The Complainants again moved the Ld. Ombudsman alleging frequent power failure. Such grievance was redressed by changing the phase. Also, to serve the Complainants better, a new distribution transformer was installed in the locality of the Complainants. Again, the Complainants lodged a complaint alleging over-registration of energy consumption on 28-01-2013. During site inspection, it was revealed that the meter was over-registering 4.89% energy consumption and accordingly, the Complainants were offered to adjust credit adjustment from the date of installation of meter but, the Complainants are yet to accord his due approval to such proposal. The Complainants though prepared one self-calculated reading of over registration of the meter at 19%, it has got no basis hence, not acceptable to the OPs. Lastly, it is stated by the OPs that the Complainants are admittedly maintaining an advanced payment account (converted from CRES Account on 01-08-2013) and their bills have been adjusted against the said account. Decision with reasons
4. On one hand, Complainants pursued their case in person and on the other; the Respondents were represented by their Ld. Advocate. We heard both sides at length at the time of hearing and perused the documents on record carefully.
5. Whether the error in meter reading was within the permissible limit as prescribed under the I.E. Rules or not, there is no denying the fact that from the very beginning, the Complainants have been the victim of excess billing. Astonishingly, repeated replacement of meter could not alter the fortune of the Complainants. To our mind, therefore, the OPs cannot disown due liability in this regard. Being a consumer, it is certainly not unwise on the part of the Complainants to expect fair dealings from the OPs. No one can be compelled to make excess payment on account of failure of the distribution licencee to install an error-free meter. However, as it appears, the OPs time and again faltered in rendering due service to the Complainants.
6. According to Central Electricity Authority (Installation and Operation of Meters) Regulations, 2006, all consumer meter must comply with rele
