Date of Argument – 01.06.2023
Date of Judgment – 28.11.2024
This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 claiming to direct the opposite parties to relieve him from the inflated electricity bill being Bill No.4303 dated 13.04.2014 for ₹95,626/- and to pay a sum of ₹1,00,000/- for causing mental harassment and loss of time and ₹ 25,000/- as cost of litigation.
Judgement
The case of the complainant is that the complainant is a cultivator having a small tea estate under the name of style of Hookhmal Valley Tea Estate having factory at Wilton, Dikom, P.O. Bosapather in Dibrugarh district of Assam. The complainant took electricity connection in the name of the tea estate under consumer No.220000014085 from the O.P. and as such he became a consumer of the O.P. u/s 2(i)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The electricity provided by the O.Ps. to the tea estate of the complainant falls under the category of “Tea Seasonal Service” and the connected load provided to the house of the complainant was 4.71 KW only. In fact, the electricity connection has been provided only to the residential premises of the complainant as there was no industry / factory in the boundary of the tea estate. It deals only in green tea leaves. Out of the said electric connection the consumption of the complainant were generally 500 to 600 unit but the complainant has to meet the inflated bills due to the reason that the connection had been provided from a separate transformer.
Inspite of little consumption of electricity, the complainant, since the year 2015 found the bills, that too served irregularly, were very much inflated and being a small tea grower without having any factory or electrical machineries have been suffering tremendous loss financially and as such the opposite parties were on several dates both verbally and in written including on 07.04.2015, 03.09.2015 and 11.02.2016 requested by the complainant to do the needful. But the O.Ps. gave no response to him.
( Document No. 1 to 8 are the xerox copies of those complaints and respective inflated bills.)
On 02.03.2019 power supply of the residence and office of the complainant was disconnected without any prior intimation. The complainant went to the office of the O.P. No.3 and on enquiry it was made known to the complainant that due to non-payment of the arrear dues the power supply was disconnected.
On 20.03.2019 a notice purportedly issued on 18.06.2018 together with an electricity bill of ₹95,626/- were served upon the complainant. The complainant was also provided a statement of loss of revenue on the same date which was not only abnormal and stunning for the complainant by clearly depicts the unfair trade practice of the opposite parties with clear motive to squeeze money from its consumers who has no second way out but to bend before the exorbitant and unjustified demand of the O.Ps. being one and only service provider in this sector.
(Complainant’s documents No. 9 & 10 are xerox copies of bill No.4303 dated 18.06.2018 which was served on the complainant on 20.03.2019).
The complainant then visited the office of the O.P. No.3 since then without number and requested to look into the matter and relieve him from the exorbitant charges against the exaggerated and inflated bill raised on account of revenue loss of APDCL which was not justified at all but the O.P. expressed helplessness over the matter.
The installation and power connection in the house of the complainant has been used as domestic service, although the connection was given as “Tea Seasonal Category” and connected load was 4.71 KW only and hence under no circumstance the complainant could attribute huge revenue loss to the opposite parties. As an ordinary consumer of the opposite parties he should not be put under pressure to pay such huge amount of ₹95,626/- for no fault of the complainant and if the consumers are given with such burden for their no fault it could be termed as unfair trade practice on the part of APDCL.
Electricity is essential part and parcel of human being and every citizen in India has the right to enjoy electricity service and denial thereof without plausible reason is violation of life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The act of carelessness on the part of opposite parties, particularly the concerned officials of APDCL caused serious mental pressure upon the complainant for the last days since he received the bill with exorbitant amount from APDCL authority. It is a case of blazing instance of dereliction of duties, negligence and unfair trade practice of the opposite parties and meted towards its consumers.
The complainant has preferred this complaint petition before this Commission/Forum seeking relief claiming to pass award and relieve the complainant from the inflated electricity bill being bill No.4303 dated 30.04.2018 for ₹95,626/- together with compensation of ₹1,00,000/- for causing mental harassment and precious time of the complainant and cost of litigation to the extent of ₹25,000/-.
After registering the case notices were issued to the opposite parties and the opposite parties contested the case by filing their W/S. On behalf of O.P. No.1, 2 and 3, O.P. No.4 the SDE, Bordubi Electrical Sub-Division, Dibrugarh has submitted their W/S as follows.
The complaint petition is not maintainable against the opposite party No.4 in law as well as on facts and the case is barred by law and the complainant has no right to file the complaint against the opposite parties. They have claimed that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and no unfair trade was practiced by the opposite parties. The bill was lawful but not paid by the complainant and as such complainant has no right to file complaint against the opposite parties.
Answering para 4 and 5 of the complaint petition these O.Ps. have submitted that the consumption of 500 to 600 unit was false. The O.P. billed average to the complainant as his electricity load was 4.75 KW. So the bill will be obviously higher. O.Ps. have admitted that on 07.04.2015 and 03.09.2015 the complainant requested the opposite parties to take needful action and the opposite parties verbally and in written asked the complainant to submit test report and to deposit security for fresh load, but the complainant did not submit test report and security load for which complainant’s request could not be materialized.
It has been submitted by the opposite parties that the complainant intentionally did not pay the bill since 24.11.2018 till 28.05.2019 amounting to ₹1,17,027/- which is still due by the complainant. It is also submitted that in normal course bills are given on a specific date. The complainant’s bill as such for the period 01.10.2018 to 01.11.2018, due date 24.11.2018 was prepared on 09.11.2018, not on 20.03.2019 as alleged by the complainant.
(Annexure A to G are the documents of the opposite parties).
In reply to para-9 of the complaint petition the O.Ps. have stated that on test checking of computerized billing system it was found that the meter of Consumer No.220000014085 was stopped initially and O.P. No.4 prepared the bill on average basis, which caused revenue loss to the O.P. No.1. While calculation was made the loss of revenue was found as follows :
- 01-04-2015 to 09-04-2017 Paid
200 units x 5KW x 12m x 740 days/
365.25 days = 24,312 units
=24312 unit x 6.75
=1,64,106/- 13513 units x 6.75
91,213/- 72,893/-
- 10-04-2017 to 01-11-2017
200 units x 5 KW x 12m x 205 days/
365.25 days
= 6735 units
=6735 units x 7.5
50,513/- 3704 units x 7.5
27, 780/- 22,733/-
95,626/-
and new meter was installed on 30-10-2018.
Replying to para – 10 of the complaint petition it has been submitted by the opposite parties that the loss of revenue was calculated as per the rule of Electricity Supply Code and Meters Regulation, 2004. (4.2.2.4). The same was sent along with the monthly bill. The complaint has failed to pay the previous monthly bill and filed this complaint seeking remedy for loss of revenue assessed against him amounting to ₹97,989/- only. At the time of filing the W/S, total outstanding amount in his name was ₹1,17,027/- only including sur-charge, as such it cannot be termed as unfair trade practice as alleged by the complainant.
Replying to para-11 of the complaint petition it has been submitted by the O.P. that the statements made in para-11 does not come within the meaning of unfair trade practice and deficiency of service of the opposite party. Replying to para-12 it has been submitted that without paying monthly bill, no one can claim to enjoy free electricity connection. Further Article 21 of the Constitution of India does not mean to provide free electricity connection to any defaulter. It is also submitted by the O.P. that the O.Ps. have right to claim arrear dues from the complainant.
The opposite parties under the stated circumstances have prayed that the Commission be pleased to dismiss the complaint petition with cost.
In this case the complainant Shri Sanjib Kumar Chetia has adduced his evidence in affidavit as PW-1. In his evidence the complainant has stated that he has been engaged in cultivating tea by managing a small tea estate under the name and style Hookhmal Valley Tea Estate (New Kailashpur) without having factory at Wilton, Dikam in Dibrugarh district of Assam and he has been duly authorized by the owner of the land and estate in cultivating the same over the said land.
Exhibit No.1 is the authority letter.
The electricity connection was provided in the name of the tea estate and thus the complainant is a consumer having consumer No.220000014085 of the opposite party as defined u/s 2(i)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act and he was regularly paying consumption bill to APDCL.
The electricity provided by O.Ps. to the tea estate of the complainant falls under the category of “Tea Seasonal Service” and the connected load provided was 4.71 KW only and the electricity connection had been provided only to the residential house of the complainant as there was no industry/factory within the boundary of that tea estate. It deals only in green tea leaves. The consumption of power in his residential complex of the complainant were 500 to 600 units generally.
In support of the contention and as sample, 5 No. of previous bills from the year 2015 to 2019 are exhibited which are marked as Exhibit No.2 to Exhibit No.6.
The complainant has adduced that he has to meet the inflated bill due to the reason that the connection has been provided in in a defective way as one phase of the 3 phase transformer was not repaired inspite of repeated request.
The complainant has also stated that inspite of little consumption of electricity since 2015 the complainant found bills, that too served regularly, were very much inflated and as a small tea grower, without having any factory or electrical machineries has been suffering loss financially and as such the opposite parties were on several dates requested to do the needful both verbally and vide written application dated 01.09.2015 to repair the 3 phase transformer but without any result.
Exhibit No.7 is the receipt of that application dated 03.09.2015.
The power supply to his residential house of the complainant was disconnected without any prior information on 02.03.2019. The complainant had to run from pillar to post to know the reason and lastly the O.P. provided him a notice on 20.03.2019 which was purportedly issued on 18.06.2018 together with an electricity bill No.4303 for ₹95,626/-. The complainant has said that the Commission will find in the annexed letter of the O.Ps. dated 18.06.2018 that the amount of ₹95,626/- was claimed as “Audit Objection” without any fault on the part of the complainant.
Exhibit No.8 is that bill.
The complainant has claimed that the amount termed as “Audit Objected amount” cannot be a liability of the consumers who was paying regularly the bill amounts without keeping any arrear amount and slapping of such a huge amount on account of “Loss of Revenue” was not only abnormal and stunning for the consumers like the complainant but clearly depicts the unfair trade practice of the O.Ps. with clear motive to squeeze money from its consumer. The consumer like the complainant are no way answerable to the loss faced by the O.Ps. for their own fault. Taking the advantage that the consumers have no second way out but to bend before the exorbitant and unjustified demand of the O.Ps. being one and only service provider in this sector.
The complainant, as adduced in his evidence, visited the office of the O.P. No.3 on 04.06.2019 and requested to look into the matter and to relieve him from the exorbitant charges against the exorbitant and inflated bill raised on account of revenue loss of APDCL which was not unjustified at all but the O.P. expressed helplessness over the matter.
Exhibit No.9 is the received copy of the letter of the complainant dated 04.06.2019.
The complainant has further adduced that as an ordinary customer of opposite parties he should not be put under pressure to pay such a huge amount of ₹ 95,626/- for no fault of him and if the consumers are given with such burden for their no fault, it can be termed as unfair trade practice on the part of O.Ps. He has also stated that he has been living hand to mouth by managing the affairs of cultivation of tea in a small sector and such unfair trade practice and deficiency in service committed by the O.Ps. raises a question mark that what will be the fate of the common citizen living with fixed minimum income.
The complainant has further stated that electricity is an essential part and parcel of human being and every citizen in India has right to enjoy electricity service and denial thereof without plausible reason is violation of life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. There is no reason why supply of electricity to his residential house was disconnected inspite of payment of regular bills to APDCL for default of O.P. to serve complainant with proper bills inspite of his repeated requests. The act of carelessness of the O.Ps., particularly the concerned officials of APDCL caused serious mental pressure upon him for several days since he received the exorbitant bill from APDCL authority.
The complainant has claimed that the opposite parties are indulging unfair trade practice and have been doing so at the cost of the hard-earned money of their consumers. The case of the complainant is a blazing instance of dereliction of duties, negligence and unfair trade practice adopted by the opposite parties and meted towards its consumers. Further no bill has been served to the complainant since March, 2020.
The complainant has prayed to pass award relieving him from the inflated electricity bill being bill No.4303 dated 30.04.2018 for ₹95,626/- together with compensation of ₹1,00,000/- for causing mental harassment and precious time and cost of litigation to the extent of ₹25,000/-.
The opposite parties in this case has failed to produce any evidence in their support and the Commission was pleased to close the evidence of the O.P. vide order dated 21.06.2022 as the case was long pending since 02.06.2021 for evidence of opposite party.
The complainant in this case has filed his written argument on 01.06.2023 along with copy to the O.P. In his argument narrating the same version as that of complaint and evidence in affidavit the complainant has further argued that after due service of notice, O.P. No.4 submitted the W/s wherein it was stated that the complainant was asked to submit test report to the APDCL which was not complied with while admitting that the complainant requested the opposite parties vide application dated 07.04.2015 and 03.09.2015 to take needful action. It has been submitted that this statement is misnomer of fact that the opposite parties ever asked the complainant to submit test report. It is the rule of the APDCL that test report is obtained prior to giving power connection to a consumer. The APDCL authority obtained test report from the complainant prior to installation of electricity connection. On the other hand it was also admitted in the W/S that the bills were prepared on an “average basis”. If bills were prepared on average basis how a consumer can be liable to bear the loss (if any) suffered by the O.P. while there was no wrong at all on the part of the consumers.
Inspite of several requests the O.Ps. disconnected the electricity connection and had been threatening to disconnect the electricity supply to the house of the complainant and as such the complainant filed petition u/s 13(3-B) of the Consumer Protection Act before this Forum/Commission and the Commission was pleased to pass interim order vide dated 30.04.2022 issuing necessary direction to the O.Ps. not to disconnect electricity connection of the complainant till further orders or until disposal of the case.
The complainant has prayed to allow his complaint petition and to pass necessary direction to the O.P. as prayed for in his complaint petition and in his evidence in affidavit.
The case was pending from 27.07.2023 till 10.04.2024 for filing written argument by the O.Ps.. But the O.P. did not submit any written argument till that date. Moreover, from perusal of order sheet it is seen that the O.Ps. were remaining absent without step since 2021 for which the Commission was pleased to close written argument of the O.P. vide order dated 28.05.2024 and accordingly the case was fixed for judgement.
Points for decision
- Whether the complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties under Consumer Protection Act.
- Whether this Commission has jurisdiction to try the case.
- Whether the opposite parties are liable for deficient services and for unfair trade practices.
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs as claimed by him.
Points decided
- From perusal of complaint and documents submitted along with complaint it is seen that the complainant was cultivating tea by managing a small tea estate under the name and style of Hookhmal Valley Tea Estate and the electricity connection was in the name of the tea estate and the complainant is the authorized person of that tea estate and as such become a consumer under Consumer Protection Act. Exhibit-1 of the complainant is the authority letter issued by the Managing Director of that tea estate. This fact is not objected by the O.P. in their W/s. Held, the complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties.
- This Commission has proper territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to try the instant case.
- In deciding the liability of the opposite parties we have gone through the W/S filed by the opposite parties. The Opposite parties in this case has failed to produce any evidence in support of them and their evidence was closed by the Commission vide order dated 21.06.2022. The O.P. has also not submitted any written argument in this case.
The complainant in his complaint as well as in his evidence in affidavit has stated that he was engaged in tea cultivation by managing a small tea estate under the name and style of Hookhmal Valley Tea Estate (New Kailashpur) and he had been duly authorized by the owner of the land/estate for the same. The electricity connection was sanctioned in the name of the tea estate vide Consumer No.220000014085 and the electricity connection was under the “Tea Seasonal Service” category. The connected load provided was 4.71 KW only. No industry/factory was there within the premises of the tea estate and the electricity connection was provided to the residential house of the complainant. According to the complainant consumption of power in his residential complex was 500 to 600 units. He has exhibited 5 Nos. of previous bills from 2015 to 2019 as Exhibit No. 2 to 6. Perused the bills. Exhibit No.2 shows consumed units as 488 unit and bill was prepared accordingly showing previous arrear dues. The bill was prepared for the period from 02.02.2015 to 01.03.2015 but the meter reading was shown as zero. Exhibit No.3 is the bill prepared for the period from 01.03.2016 to 01.04.2016 and the unit consumed was shown as 560 units. In this bill also meter reading showed as 0.00. Exhibit No.4 is the bill prepared for the period from 01.09.2017 to 01.10.2017 and the unit consumed was shown as 542 units showing meter reading as 0.00. Exhibit No.5 is the bill prepared for the period from 01.04.2018 to 01.05.2018 showing consumption as 54 units where also meter reading was shown as 0.00. Exhibit No.6 is the bill prepared for the period from 01.05.2019 to 01.07.2019 showing unit consumed as 100.6 units only. We have seen that in this bill previous meter reading was shown as 561 and present meter reading is shown as 661.6 unit. Seen that prior to this bill the meter installed by the O.P. did not work and bills were prepared on an average basis as alleged by the complainant. Meter No. shown in the previous bills was ASA54417 and in the bill exhibited as exhibit-6 meter No. is shown as Y0574344. As the exhibite-6 was prepared on the basis of actual meter reading we may come to a conclusion that the consumption of power consumption shown in this bill is genuine one unlike the previous bills.
We have also perused the exhibit-7, the letter of the complainant to the O.P. dated 03.09.2015 whereby the complainant informed the O.P. No.3 that the O.P. charged access bill from the complainant. Complaining non-connection of electricity in one phase in their meter the complainant requested to provide either three phase current connection or to convert the meter to a single phase line. This letter reflects that the complainant before this letter also complained about the same more than once in black and white or through words of mouth. Seen that inspite of the matter brought to their notice the O.P., APDCL did not adopt any measure to relieve the complainant till first part of 2019. Only from 01.05.2019 consumption bill has been prepared on actual meter reading basis. According to this bill unit consumed is shown as 100.6 units and total amount due for this period was ₹ 3172/- only exccluding the arrear and surcharges. From perusal of complainant’s exhibit-8, the letter with bill of APDCL dated 18.06.2018 it is seen that vide this letter the O.P. No.3 demanded to pay a sum of ₹ 95,626/- from the complainant against his electricity consumption of the said electricity connection on the ground of Audit Objection Bill within seven days from receipt of that letter. The complainant vide his letter dated 04.06.2019, in reply to exhibit No.-8, informed the O.P. that the bill amount against the running bill was paid up to the month of October, 2018 and due to unavoidable difficulties he could not make payment since November, 2018. He also informed the O.P. No.3 that he is willing to pay the running bills and requested the O.P. to keep aside the disputed bill amount of ₹ 95,626/- for the time being till the dispute regarding the said amount is decided by the court of law.
- We have found it quite difficult in absence of any evidence or written argument on the part of opposite parties to dis-believe the complaint’s grievance that he was charged with the bill No.4303 dated 30.04.2018 for ₹ 95,626/- along with statement of loss of revenue on the ground of audit objection bill is really exorbitant and unjustified. From the discussions and observations above we have found that APDCL authority was in fault for not providing active meter and proper phase connection in the electricity connection provided to the complainant. Had the meter provided worked properly the complainant would have no necessity to come to this Forum/Commission seeking justice. The Act of the opposite parties compelled the complainant to come to the Commission for redressal of his grievance. We found that the opposite parties are liable for deficient and negligent services on their part to provide needful services to the complainant. Moreover, imposing of exorbitant bill on the ground of audit objection, not borne by the complainant amounts to unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act.
Under the circumstances stated above, this Commission directs the opposite parties, Assam Power Distribution Company Ltd. :-
- To relieve the complainant by waiving the bill amount of ₹95,626/- billed against the complainant vide bill No.4303 dated 30.04.2018.
- To pay a compensation of ₹20,000/- for causing mental harassment and loss of precious time of the complainant.
- To pay a sum of ₹5000/- as cost of the litigation.
All the above amounts be deposited into the credit of this Commission by the opposite parties, APDCL within 30(thirty) days from the date of receipt of this judgement and order. Furthermore, the complainant is hereby directed to pay all outstanding and current bills excluding bill No.4303 to the O.P. The opposite party, APDCL is also asked to take necessary step to realize the outstanding (if any) bills including the current bills.
The instant C.C. No.05/2019 is accordingly disposed of on contest.
Send copy of this judgement and order to the opposite parties for compliance. Complainant is to take step.
Next date fixed 09.01.2025 for compliance of order and judgement.
