DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 0144
C.C. CASE NO. _167_ OF ___2010
DATE OF FILING : 25.6.2010 DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT: _19.4.2018_
Present : President : Ananta Kumar Kapri
Member(s) : Subrata Sarker & Jhunu Prasad
COMPLAINANT : Sadhana Adhikary, wife of Dulal Ch. Adhikary, Paschim Das Para, P.O Sonarpur, P.S Sonarpur, South 24-PGs, Kolkata – 150.
O.P/O.Ps : 1. AE & Station Manager, Sonarpur, Gashiahara, P.S Sonarpur, Sonarpur Group E/S. W.B.S.E.D.C L, Kolkata – 150.
2. The Chairman, WBSEDCL, Vidyut Bhavan, Bidhan Nagar, Block-DJ, Sector-11, Kolkata – 91.
_______________________________________________________________________
J U D G M E N T
Sri Ananta Kumar Kapri, President
Briefly stated, the complainant’s case is that he took electric line from the O.P Electricity Department and his Consumer no. is A112705 and Service connection no.SD/18127 . His meter went defective and thereafter one bill was sent by O.P-1 to the complainant on 15.9.2008 and thereby complainant was asked to pay a hefty amount of Rs.29,017/- due to consumption of electricity. Complainant raised grievances before the O.P-1 for rectifying the electric bill. That grievance went unattended. So, the instant case is filed by the complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.P Department for issuing exorbitant bill. Hence, this case.
The O.Ps Electricity Department is contesting the case by filing written statement ,wherein it is contended inter alia that the connection was given to the complainant on 11.7.2003. Average consumption of the complainant per quarter was varying from 307 to 836 units. The disputed bill relates to the period from September 2008 to November 2008 and the bill amount is Rs.29,017/-. Prayer for correction of the said bill which was submitted by the complainant was referred to the Higher Authority on 23.4.2010 and the Higher Authority decided to the effect that the bill was correct and the complainant was to pay the bill. It is further contended by the O.Ps that the billing dispute does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum and as such the Consumer Forum should not entertain such dispute and the case should , therefore, be dismissed in limini.
Upon the averments of the parties following points are formulated for consideration.
POINT FOR DETERMINATION
- Is the case maintainable in its present form and in law?
- Is the O.P-1 guilty of deficiency in service for demanding excessive charge for the consumption of electricity by the complainant?
- Is the complainant entitled to get the relief or reliefs as prayed for?
EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES
Evidences on affidavit have been led by the complainant and theO.Ps. Questionnaires, Replies and the BNAs filed on behalf of the parties are kept in the record for consideration.
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point no.1:-
It has been contended on behalf of the O.Ps that the billing dispute is not to be entertained by the Forum in law and that there is a separate machinery for dealing with such kind of dispute.
It is true that there is a separate machinery established for dealing with such kind of dispute. Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 confers an additional jurisdiction upon the Forum, which is not in derogation with the existing provisions of Law. This implies that the Forum will have concurrent jurisdiction with any other machinery established by law for dealing with such type of dispute. That apart, the supply of electricityis a kind of service in accordance with the provisions under section 2(1)(O) of the C.P Act, 1986. The Consumer Forum has unique jurisdiction to deal with any kind of deficiencyin service and no other Forum can exercise such jurisdiction as yet in our country. So, regards being had to all these, we feel no hesitation to say that the Forum has jurisdiction to deal with the dispute existing between the parties as it relates to the services which is sought to be rendered to the complainant by the O.Ps Department.
Point no.1 is thus primarily answered in favour of the complainant.
Point nos. 2 and 3:-
Now to see whether the O.P Department is guilty of deficiency in service in so far as the issue of disputed bill is concerned. The disputed bill relates to the months of September 2008, October 2008 and November 2008 and by this bill an amount of Rs.29,017/- is claimed by the O.P . It is the version of the complainant that his meter went defective and, therefore, the recording of the meter was not at all correct. Written statement has been filed by the O.P and there is no whisper therein in this regard. If an allegation of the complainant is not denied by the O.P, the allegation is deemed to be admitted by the O.Ps. Coming to the facts of the instant case, we feel no hesitation to say that the meter of the complainant was defective at the relevant point of time i.e during the month of September, October and November, 2008. That the meter was defective at the relevant time is also established from the meter reading card, a copy of which is produced by the complainant on record. From the disputed bill it is found that the previous reading date of meter was 30.5.2008 and the present reading date of the meter was 8.9.2008. From meter reading card, it is found that on that very date i.e on 30.5.2008 the meter was defective. So, in the circumstances, the O.P Department should have followed the guidelines provided by the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code) Regulations, 2013. In 2008, WBERC Regulation 2007 issued under Notification n o.36 /WBERC dated 12.9.2007 was in vogue; but now that Regulation has been repealed by Regulation 10 of WBERC ( Electricity Supply Code) Regulation 2013. Regulation 10.1 of 2013 – Regulation provides that anything done or any action already taken under the repealed Regulation shall be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provision of these Regulations i.e Regulation of 2013.
Let us now see what is provided in Regulation 2013. Regulation 3.6 deals with preparation of bill in case of any meter which is discovered to be defective. Regulation 3.6.1 of 2013 Regulation provides that when a meter of a consumer is found defective or defunct for the reason other than theft of electricity, as provided in section 135 of Electricity Act, the Consumer shall pay provisionally for consumption of electricity for the period during which the meter has been suspected to have been defective on the basis of average consumption for the preceding and/or succeeding three months ,that may reasonably be comparable before the meter was found to be defective or defunct. Regulation 3.6.2 thereof provides that when the meter fixed for measuring the maximum demand becomes defective the maximum demand shall be assessed by computation on the basis of the average of the recorded demand during the preceding and/or succeeding three months or during any previous or subsequent period that may be reasonably comparable.
Coming to the facts of the instant case it is found that meter of the complainant was defective at the relevant time and this fact goes unchallenged. The O.P Department should have followed the Regulation while proceeding to prepare the bill for the period during which the meter was defective. It is the version of the O.P Department that average consumption per quarter of the complainant was varying from 307 to 836 units. The disputed bill is seen to have been prepared on total unit of 5132. It is manifestly clear that the O.Ps Department has given a go-bye to the provisions of Regulations as referred to above while preparing the disputed bill against the Consumer. The preparation of bill in violation of the provisions of Regulations by the O.Ps Department is undoubtedly an act of deficiency in service and, therefore, the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for.
In the result, the case succeeds.
Hence,
ORDERED
That complaint case be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.Ps with a cost of Rs.10,000/-.
The O.Ps are directed to prepare the electric bill for the disputed period strictly in accordance with the provisions of Regulations as enumerated in the body of Judgment and to send the same to the complainant for payment within 15 days of receipt of this order by the office of the O.Ps and if such a bill is forwarded to the complainant ,the complainant will make payment thereof within 15 days of the receipt of the said bill.
The complainant has certainly sustained a tremendous harassment and mental agony due to unlawful act of the O.P Department and, therefore, the O.Ps Department will pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation along with cost as referred to above within a month of this order, failing which both the amounts of compensation and cost will carry interest @10% p.a till full realization thereof.
Let a free copy of this order be given to the parties concerned at once.
President
I / We agree
Member Member
Dictated and corrected by me
President
