BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

CACHAR :: SILCHAR

Con. Case No. 5 of 2015

                        RUNGAMATEE TEA & INDUSTRIES LTD., ……………….. Complainant.   

                                                                        -V/S-

                        1.         Assam Power Distribution Co.Ltd.

                                    IND.REV, COLL. Area Badarpurghat,

                                    Karimganj, Assam……………………………………….. O.P.No.1

                        2.         Asst. General Manager, IRCA, APDCL, CAR,

                                    Badarpurghat, Karimganj, Assam……………………… O.P.No.2

                        3.         Asst. Manager, IRCA, APDCL, CAR,

                                    Badarpurghat, Karimganj, Assam……………………… O.P.No.3

                        4.         Accounts Officer, IRCA, APDCL, CAR,

                                    Badarpurghat, Karimganj, Assam……………………… O.P.No.4

                        5.         General Manager APDCL, Central Assam Zone

                                    Radhamahav Road, Silchar, Cachar……………………. O.P.No.5

Present: -                                Sri Bishnu Debnath,                                       President,

District Consumer Forum,

                                                Cachar, Silchar.                                            

Mrs. Chandana Purkayastha,                      Member,

                                                            District Consumer Forum,

                                                            Cachar, Silchar.                                            

                                                            Shri Kamal Kumar Sarda,                           Member,

                                                            District Consumer Forum,

                                                            Cachar, Silchar.                                            

            Appeared :-                Debashish Som, Advocate for Complainant.

Buddha Pratim Deb, Advocate for the O.P.                                      

                         Date of Evidence………………………..    02-06-2015, 29-06-2015

                         Date of written argument………………    01-08-2017

                         Date of oral argument…………………..    28-12-2017

                         Date of judgment………………………..    09-02-2018

JUDGMENT AND ORDER

                              Sri Bishnu Debnath,

1. This Case has been brought by the Rungamatee Tea and Industries Ltd. represented by Manager Chandighat Tea Estate, Udharbond, Cachar. The Chandighat Tea Estate is one of the business unit of Rungamatee Tea and Industries Ltd. The Case has been brought under the provision of Consumer Protection Act. 1986 against Assam Power Distribution Co. Ltd. (APDCL) including its General Manager, Central Assam Zone, Radhamadhav Road, Silchar, Cachar for quashing energy Bill No.56 dated 02/06/2014 for Rs.10,92,171/- and award of compensation for disservice etc.

    

2. The brief fact:- The Chandighat Tea Estate being one of the business unit of the Complainant is registered Consumer of APDCL vide Consumer No. 10 (c)/LT-1. The electric connection as per the above consumer number was provided to labour quarter of Chandighat Tea Estate. The Meter No. ASE60800 was attached to that Consumer number. The Meter was giving faulty reading since August 2009 to 31^st May 2013. Accordingly, New Meter with CT/PT set was installed. However, during the aforesaid period of almost 5 years the Complainant was paying average monthly bills raised by the O.Ps. But the Complainant was surprised and shocked to receive an energy bill No.56 dated 02/06/2014 for Rs.10,92,171 allegedly for period from August 2009 to 31^st May 2013 against the aforesaid Consumer No.10-C/LT-1 in the name of Manager Chandighat Tea Estate in respect of the Labour quarter. So, the impugn Bill is not only contrary to terms and condition of Assam Electricity Regulatory Commission but also barred under Section 56 (2) of the Electricity Act. 2003, where it is specifically mentioned that no sum due from any Consumer shall be recoverable after the period of 2 (two) years from the date when such sum become fist due unless arrear is shown and continue to the previous bills. Hence, the Complainant being dissatisfied brought this Case.

3. The APDCL and its officer are referred here as O.Ps. They have submitted their joint W/S. In the W/S stated inter-alia that Complainant is not a Consumer under the O.P. rather, Manager Chandighat Tea Estate is the Consumer for which no relief can be entitled by the Complainant. In the W/S stated inter alia that the meter installed in the premise of Consumer No. 10-C/LT-1 was starting faulty reading but the Consumer did not take proper step in time to replace a new meter with CT/PT set. However, prior to instal new meter with CT/PT set average energy bill raised and the Consumer paid the bills. But as per the provision of claim 4.2.2.4 of the terms and condition, regulation of Assam Electricity Regulatory Commission Rules after installation of the new electric meter with CT/PT, 3 (three) months average consumption revised bill can be issued for less payment of previous defective meter period. Thus, question of limitation of 2 (two) year in respect of electric bill issued under clause 4.2.2.4 does not arise in the case relating to defective Electric Meter. Accordingly, the revised bill No. 56 dated 02/06/2014 for the period from August 2009 to 31^st May 2013 was served to the recorded Consumer No.10-C/LT-1.

    

4. During hearing the Complainant submitted deposition of Sri Sandeep Tyagi, the Manager of Chandighat Tea Estate and exhibited 5 (Five) sets of documents including bill No.56 dated 02/06/2011. The O.Ps also submitted deposition of Sri Shekhar Roy, the Assistant General Manager and exhibited some documents including calculation sheet of revised energy bill. After closing evidence both sides counsels submitted their respective written argument.

    

5. I have heard oral argument of both sides counsels. Perused the evidence on record and also perused the written argument.

    

6. In this case it is crystal clear from evidence on record that the Manager Chandighat Tea Estate is a business unit of Rungamatee Tea and Industries Ltd. Hence, the Complainant has locus standi to bring the instant case against the O.P because as per provision of section 2 (I) (d) (II) of Consumer Protection Act. 1986 a beneficiary is also a Consumer. In this Case, the Manager, Chandighat Tea Estate is subordinate to the Complainant and the electricity connection has been installed in the Chandighat Tea Estate for the benefit of the complainant’s business as well as benefit of the labourer. So, Complainant or any of the labour who is consuming the electric energy form the connection under Consumer No. 10-C/LT-1 is consuming. Thus, the Case is maintainable in its present forum.

    

7. However, in this case moot point is whether the O.P. can serve a revised electric bill to recover arrear of energy charges for electricity supply beyond the period of 2 (two) years from the date of 1^st falling dues. In this matter, the O.P. took plea that as per rules after replacement of defective meter the O.P may raise revised electric bill for entire defective period and to calculate revised bill, post installation of New meter for 3 (Three) consecutive months reading may be taken into consideration. To support the said plea they referred clause 4.2.2.4 of the terms and conditions of the Regulation of Assam Electricity Regulatory Commission Rules as adopted in the Assam Legislative Assembly as amended in 2007. So the opinionof the O.Ps is that question of limitation in respect of Electric bill issued under clause 4.2.2.4 does not arise rather after installation/replacement of old electric meter by a new electric meter with CT/PT set, 3 (three) months average consumption revised bill can be issued for less payment of the previous defective meter.

    

8. I have gone through the provision of clause 4.2.2.4 of the Terms, Conditions and Regulations of Assam Electricity Regulatory Commission Rules 2004 as amended in 2007. The said provision stated the procedure for assessment of consumption in case of incorrect or stopped meter. The said provision says in the event of any meter being found prima facie incorrect (which includes a stopped, slow or fast meter) and where actual error of reading cannot be ascertained, the assessed quantity of energy consumption shall be determined by taking the average consumption for the previous 3 (three) months proceeding the date on which the defect was detected or the next 3 (three) months after correction, which is higher and bill be prepared and present accordingly.

    

9. But the complainant cited the provision of clause 4.3.3 of the aforesaid Regulatory Commission which says not withstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no sum due from any consumer under this Section shall be recovered after a period of 2 (two) years from the date when such sum become first due unless such sum has been shown continuously as recoverable as arrear of charges for electricity supply.

    

10. As per the complainant once average bill for defective period is raised and payment made, the O.Ps are debarred to raised revised bill for excess energy charge for exceeding 2 (two) years.

     

11. However, in the average bill raised during the defective meter period vide Ext-3 (ii),

    Ext-3 (iii) etc. no arrear is shown. That is why, the Ld. Advocate of the complainant argued that as per the earlier cited provision, the O.P is not allowed to raise revised bill. But after going through the above referred provisions, I do not find anything regarding restriction to raise revised bill except arrear bill. That is why the case law referred by the complainant side vide 2009(2) GLT.212 is not fit to the instant case because the said case did not deal with bill of a defective period of electric meter. Rather provision 4.2.2.4 of the aforesaid Regulatory Commission permitted the O.P to raise average bill for defective period either for taken into consideration 3 (three) months prior energy consumption reading or 3 (three) months after replacement of defective meters energy consumption reading whichever is higher.

     

12. In the instant case the O.P raised average consumption bill during the defective meter period on the basis of 3 (three) months prior to the beginning of the defective meter period and after replacement of new meter, calculated average energy consumption on the basis of 3 (three) months post replacement of new meter period and found the O.P received less energy charge by raising average bill earlier. So, they raised the revised bill No. 56 dated 02-06-2014. Thus in my considered view the O.P did not violate any provision to raised revised bill for period exceeding 2 (two) years.

     

13. So, the complainant is not entitled any relief from this District Forum. Accordingly, the case is dismissed on contest without any cost. Supply free certified copy of judgment to the parties. Given under my hand and seal of this District Forum on this the 9^th day of February, 2018.