BEWARE OF INFLATED ELECTRITY BILL.IT MAY DEVASTATE AN UNSUSPECTING CONSUMER.Power Consumers, beware of inflated energy bill. It may devastate you. As per the existing regulations, even if an energy bill is whoppingly inflated or unrealistic, you have to first of all pay it off. Otherwise the consumer may face disconnection.Just look at my case.It so happened that the meter stopped, being defective or burnt. It read 12,914 units, but the meter reader wrongly read it and recorded a reading of 12,934 instead.A meter reader may not be so diligent as to distinguish between 3 and 1 in the last but one digit. Such lapses are not unusual, but the result it ultimately produced was quite unusual, rather devastating. How? Just see.Month after month, the above previous reading was carried forward until some other meter reader stepped in to find the meter reading was 12,914. Accordingly, this figure was posted as the present meter reading, while the previous reading already stood posted as 12,934.There was none to point out that the said previous teading of 12,934 was an aberration.Sobthe incorrect entry of the previous reading of 12,934, in the light of the present reading entry of 12,914 produced a whopping unit consumption figure of 99,958 units for which an amount of Rs.5,55,656/- was slammed.What happened thereafter may be construed from a draft complaint I am posting below, with two objectives. One is to give a detailed account of what happened and what is the remedy before the consumer forum. The other objective is to generate awareness about the need to keep a constant eye on the actual meter reading vis a vis that entered in the bill. Any discrepency must be complained against.So please see the following draft and comment.
Before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum,
BHAGALPUR.
Consumer Complaint Case No. …………. of 2013.
Rajesh Sahai, s/o late Shyam Shanker Sahai, resident of Shiva Bhawan, Police Line Road, mohalla Bhikhanpur, P.S.Ishakchack, Town & District Bhagalpur.
COMPLAINANT.
Vrs.
The Electrical Executive Engineer, Urban Supply Division, Bhagalpur under the Bihar State Electricity Board, now Bihar Power Holding Company, Power House Building, Mujahidpur, Bhagalpur.
Opposite Party.
THE COMPLAINANT ABOVE NAMED BEGS TO STATE AS BELOW:-
That the Complainant is a power consumer, having a load of 5 KW commercial electric connection in premises situated under O.P’s Tilkamanjhi Subdivision, having Consumer No.7877/43/CS/43103/B; Account No. 14241, (Consumer - Rajesh Sahai, Complainant).
That the meter reading and bill raising system under or attached to the O.P is erroneous, undependable and bogus, which results into inflated billing which is a constant menace for the consumers at large, and so is the unsystematic and non-transparent rigmarole of the bill rectification process and procedure.
That the present case is a representative sample of the above said worm-eaten system, warranting remedy and judicial intervention by this Hon’ble Forum, by means of award(s), order(s) and direction(s) in both forms, namely in rem as also in personam.
That, to cut a long story short, it is respectfully submitted that, not just the agencies, rather the entire system, under or attached to, O.P No.1, for meter reading and billing, is malfunctional due to poor command and controls.
That the complainant fell victim of the above malfunction, poor command and controls, when an inflated bill of 8/12 , bearing an unrealistic figure of r Rs.5,55,656/-, calculated on an equally unrealistic unit consumption of 99,958 was raised.
That without mincing words, it is pointed out that as against rectification complaint lodged and vigorously pursued, the O.P was pleased to purportedly effected rectification by issuing provisional bill dt. 20.8.13, for 6/13, for Rs.30,956.37, which the Complainant has paid off, but under protest and without prejudice, vide representation dated 26.8.13, enlisting his unaddressed grievances, as aided and furthered vide representation dated 27.8.13.
That, however, the same has fetched O.P’s negative nod in person, for which the O.P pleaded his purported limitations which only a judicial intervention could resolve, hence the present complaint is expedient for redressal of complainant’s grievance which merits disposal not just in consumer’s personal interest, but also in larger public interest.
That the brief facts which are relevant for the present complaint are that it is not in dispute that the bill for 8/12 was inflated, founded on alleged unit consumption of 99,958, which defies logic, being starkly unrealistic.
That despite being prima facie incongruous and impossible, hence neither payable nor paid, the same was carried forward month after month, carrying forward therewith even the disconnection threat which stands prominently notified in the said inflated and unrecoverable bills..
That an erroneous bill is void ab initio, hence not recoverable until rectified. Thereby O.P is obligated to notify the withdrawal of disconnection threat as soon as a bona fide rectification complaint is lodged, which the O.P neglects and fails to do, thereby hanging a virtual sword of damacles over consumer’s head. This is not just deficiency in service but also an act of illegal torturing, for which the consumer is entitled for twin reliefs, namely for compensation as also for general direction for the withdrawal of disconnection notification in case of bona fide rectification complaints.
That the O.P found the above said unit consumption wrong, founded on erroneous reading, but while calculating the energy charges, committed two vital errors, namely;
The O.P did not give month to month break up figures for its veracity test; besides
The O.P wrongly loaded the delayed payment surcharge on the amounts for which no bills were ever raised.
That the O.P committed the above error because he lost sight of the fact that a purportedly recoverable bill was for the first time raised by way of the above said provisional bill dated 20.8.13, in that all the prior bills since 8/12 were void and not recoverable, being founded on fictitious unit consumption of 99,958.
That, more over, the Complainant has further grievance to the effect as below:-
That from the date of complaint lodgment seeking rectification till the issuance of purportedly rectified provisional bill dt.20.8.13, the complainant/consumer was kept completely uninformed, keeping the processing of the complaint wholly non-transparent.
That ,as such, information has been sought vide RTI application dt. 4.6.13 which remains uncomplied, hence appeal has been filed. This might seem besides the point, but it is pertinent to kindly note that hiding the informations and excluding the consumer from the informations respecting consumer grievance constitutes inexcusable deficiency in service causing untold hardship and metal agoney, liable to be recompensed.
That vide representation dated 26.8.13 and dt.27.8.13, complainant solicited the above redressal, besides stressing as below:-
That no electricity bill should be raised without filling up the two requisite columns, namely (a) the present reading with date; and (b) the past reading with the date; both, figures and dates being mandatory, apart from mentioning the image number (in that imaging by photographic process has since long been introduced but the same is erratically followed in absence of proper control or superintendence which is, materially and substantially, deficiency in service meted out to the consumers.
That without the above mandatory compliance, the bills are perfunctory, hence no coercive action for the recovery of such perfunctory bills should be taken, in that, if taken, the same would be actionable.
That without prejudice to the expedient and mandatory nature of the above pre-requisite compliances, the meter reading and the billing agency, both, must be given a clear direction that in the event of the non-fulfillment of the above, utmost care must be exercised to immediately report to the authorities as well as the concerned consumer, in case any absurd reading or result or product is reflected, producing any enormous, incongruous or apparently illogical figures of ‘unit consumed’, for its resolution at once either at the consumer’s level or at the level of the authorities.
(The case under the above representation is a good example in the above regard, as would the following present and past reading figures on your record would reflect, as below:-
Bill for.Present readingPast readingObvious Inference.
11/1111,59711,597
2/1212,93412,934
6/1212,93412,934
7/1212,93412,934
8/1212,892(image*4,950)12,934
9/1212,914(image 6,933)12,914
1/1312,91412,914
2/1312,91412,914
(* Image means proof by photography, contained in Compact Disc).
That in absence of the above, a consumer is under constant harassment and loss, all occasioned by gross deficiency in service and inflated billing.
That O.P’s complaint redressal system is non-transparent and thus, is bogus, hence actionable, for the following broad reasons:-
That after its receipt in the dak section, a consumer complaint travels with snail’s pace, reaching your desk after 4 to 5 days for endorsement and marking to the desk officer who would deal with the matter at his leisure after consuming time of his own discretion, as there is no feedback system set up by you to see whether or why the desk officer or dealing clerk has not processed the file timely or with expedition.
On the other hand, your O.P’s system of file processing is kept non-transparent, as the consumer is kept out of the picture, completely uninformed.
The above non-transparency by keeping the consumer uninformed and at bay, makes your exercise absolutely dubious and actionable, apart from creating a concomitant liability for you for the resultant deficiency in service, in that it is part of your duty to not only redress a complaint, but also to maintain complete transparency while letting the consumer access thereto. Absence thereof is not only deficiency in service, but also liable to be inferred as a technique to promote palm greasing by the use of arm twisting threats.
That,as such, it is expedient that:-
That no bills are raised unless two mandatory fields are filled up with actual duly evidenced (with image number) figures of present and past readings with dates.
That in the event of the generation of any incongruous product based on readings, the consumer and the authorities must be promptly alarmed for immediate verification and resolution.
That the complaint redressal system should be directed to be made efficient and transparent, giving right of access and participation to the consumers, and pending complaint redressal, no coercive action should be taken, inasmuch as, your bills stipulate and threaten disconnection in the event of non-payment, oblivious that an inflated and wrong bill undergoing correction can not be paid, or alternatively consumers should be given the option to make payment of the undisputed amount.
That even though Complainant’s above said grievances are bona fide, O.P has neglected and failed to address, much less redress the same, hence the same constitutes deficiency in service and a source of mental agony which is actionable and liable to be evaluated and accordingly redressed by this Hon’ble Forum.
That the Complainant is, therefore, entitled for the reliefs, as below:-
For the refund of the delayed payment surcharge component wrongly charged in the above said provisional bill for 6/13, dt.20.8.13 all the prior bills since 8/12 are void ab initio which were not payable until rectified, hence no DPS would be chargeable or admissible.
For awarding compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the mental agony caused in the rectification process, especially occasioned by the non-transparency in the processing of the consumer complaint.
For declaring and holding the ensuing bills void and thus not recoverable at all unless and until the mandatory fields thereof are duly filled, namely actually recorded meter readings with date, both past and present, supported by imaging reference and further forbidding coercive action against non payment of non-responsive or non-compliant billing.
Any other relief or reliefs, as deemed fit, including interest on awarded sums till recovery.
Cost.
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS,THE COMPLAINANT SHALL EVER PRAY.
Verification
Verified that the contents of the above Paras of the complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. No part of it is false and nothing has been concealed there from.
BHAGALPUR.
Dated: Complainant
