Assam

Dibrugarh

CC/16/2006

SHRI KAMAL MAZUMDAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

ASSAM STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD - Opp.Party(s)

RISHIRAJ BORBOOAH

16 Jun 2023

ORDER

The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant is the consumer of OPs vide Consumer No. C/236 and received an electricity commercial connection at his New Mazumar Market Complex on 31-10-95 after being paid an amount of Rs.3486/- vide Bill No.92/64 and was paying the electricity bill regularly. On 20-6-97 the complainant was  surprised to see an electricity bill of Rs.7362.44/-. The complainant as such, made a written complaint to OP No.1 to remove the defective meter and to replace a new one. The OP No.1 removed the said meter from the said market complex and thereafter fixed energy power consumption of 148 Unit for every month. The OP No.1 till 12-8-03 did not install new meter in spite of several requests by the complainant. However, the OPs on 13-8-03 installed one new electric meter being No.46293 in the complainant’s market complex, but the OPs still after installing the new meter did not issue regular bills for payment though, several requests were made to the OPs. As the OP No-1 did not send electricity bill to the complainant regularly the complainant sent several reminders to the OPs including OP No-4. But the OPs paid no heed on it. Later on, in the month of February,2005 OP No.1 sent a bill of Rs.6870.24 and a legal notice with an warning to disconnect the electricity. The complainant to avoid the untoward incident paid the said bill. The OP No.1 without sending any electricity bill to the complainant from the month of June,2004 to January,2005 suddenly, sent bill for the month of February, 2005 with legal notice. The OP No.1 again sent a bill of Rs.8513/- for the month of March,2005 to June, 2005 for 700 units and stated in the right side of the bill that the previous meter reading was 3646. Prior to this bill OP No.1 usually charged 184 unit of power consumption for each and every month. Therefore, the complainant again approached to the OP for clarification but they refused to give any clarification about it. The complainant however, to avoid disconnection of electricity paid the bill of 8513/-. Thereafter,  the OP No.1 surprisingly in the month of July, 2005 issued an electricity bill No.8222 for Rs.67,166.97/- along with a statement of pending arrear. As such, the complainant again approached to the OP No.4 for clarification and also  requested him to make an enquiry about the said bill and the complainant also apprised about the difficulty to deposit Rs.67,106.97/- in one instalment. But the OP neither responded nor made any enquiry. On the next month of August the OP issued  another electricity bill No.87676 of Rs.72,633.79/-. Thereafter, till 18-10-05 the OP did not issued any electricity bill to the complainant. Meanwhile, the complainant approached to the OPs with prayer to allow him to deposit the outstanding amount on instalment basis which the OP refused. Finally, the OPs on 18-10-05 without serving any legal notice cut off the electricity connection from the complainant’s market complex for which the complainant suffered huge loss. The complainant has ten shops in the market complex and all shop owner vacated the ten shops for disconnection of electricity  in the market complex for which the complainant suffered a great loss. The complainant therefore, filed a Misc.(J) Case along with a Title Suit before the Munsiff No.1, Dibrugarh for restoration of the electricity connection who in his judgment dated 30-1-06 in the Misc.(J) Case No.60/05  directed the ASEB, Naharkatia, to give power supply to the complainant’s market complex after being deposited Rs.15,000/- as initial payment to the ASEB and the remaining amount is to be paid in five instalments within six months time from the date of passing  of judgment and order in Misc. Case No.60/05. However, the Title Suit No. 135/05 was dismissed for default. Accordingly, the complainant deposited the first instalment of Rs.15000/- on 30-2-06, the OP No.1 connected the electricity. The complainant after being installed electric connection the complainant made several requests to install the electric sub-meter in his commercial market complex but the OP No.1 did not install any sub-meter as requested by the complainant. After receiving Rs.15,000/- from the complainant OP made a deduction in their bill dated 31-8-05 and after their deduction the balance remain Rs.57,633.79/-. On 17-4-06 OP No.1 issued another electricity bill bearing No.3488 of Rs.62,547/-. On 3-5-06 the OP No.1 issued another electricity bill of Rs.61,771/- the bill No. being 17398. The OP No.1 sent three electricity bill for the month of May,2006 and harassed the complainant. Further, as the shop keepers do not have separate electricity sub-meter the shop keepers suffered sufficient inconvenience to pay their electricity dues and also causing great difficulty to the complainant to pay for outstanding amount. All the above act of irregular issue of electricity bill and suddenly submitting an inflated bill of a huge amount clearly indicates that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The OPs whimsically and arbitrarily by submitting an inflated and high amount  bill which committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and thereby the complainant suffered heavy loss and mental harassment. Hence, the complainant prayed to direct the OPs to pay compensation of Rs.9,50,000/- for mental harassment, financial loss in business  alongwith cost of the case.

           On basis of above complaint petition this case was registered and issued notice to all the OPs who contested the case and submitted their written statement stating inter-alia that the case is not maintainable in law as well as in fact. The OPs submitted that the petitioner filed a Title Suit on 21-1-05 in the Court of Civil Judge, Jr. Division No.1 at Dibrugarh which was registered as Title Suit No.135/05 along with a Misc.(J) Case No.60/05 with prayer to restoration of electric connection to his market complex which was disconnected for non-payment of huge energy bills. As per direction of the court the complainant paid Rs.15,000/- as initial payment to the ASEB and other dues in two instalment. The power supply was accordingly restored to the petitioner’s market complex and accordingly the Misc. (J) Case No.60/05 was disposed of and the Title Suit No.135/05 was dismissed on 30-6-06 for failure to take step by the plaintiff. The OPs further stated that the main issue of the complainant for filing the present case is due to failure of the OP in installation of sub-meter in every shop of the market complex owned by the petitioner which is not permissible under Terms and Conditions of Supply, 1998. However, a separate sub-meter may be arranged by the owner of the complex himself with an intimation and approval from the concerned authority. Petitioner was advised accordingly but he did not do so. The bills were served as per rules of tariff regularly but he failed to make the instalment even in defiance of court’s order. There is no laces or negligence or deficiency of service to the consumer as the complainant alleged. The suffering of the complainant are a creation of the complainant himself and the OPs are not at all liable for the same. Regarding the payment of compensation which is due to the OPs are not at all liable as such, it is absolutely unwarranted, uncalled for. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and wilful negligence. So they prays to dismiss the case filed by the complainant with cost.

        In this case complainant examined himself as PW-1 and exhibited as many as 13 (thirteen) documents in support of his claim and OPs examined one Uddip Deori, Assistant Manager of Naharkatia Electrical Sub-Division as DW-1 and exhibited no documents to rebut the case of the complainant.

       Decision and reasons thereof :

      Upon going through the evidence of both the parties and their documentary evidence and argument advanced by both the parties it is found that the complainant was the consumer of the OPs being Commercial Consumer No.C/236 of ASEB. The complainant received an electricity commercial connection for his New Mazumdar Market on 31-10-95 after being paid of Rs.3486/- vide Ext-1. He was regularly paying electricity bill as per assessment of OP No.1 till 20-06-1997. On 20-6-97 OP No.1 sent one inflated electricity bill of Rs.7362.44/-. This created most unpleasant atmosphere in the commercial complex among the shopkeepers as because they were not willing to pay such huge amount. As such, the complainant by a written complaint requested the OPs to remove the defective meter and also requested to put sub-meter for each and every shop in the commercial complex. Ext-2 is the said letter sent by the complainant to the OPs on 20-6-97. The OP No.1 removed the defective meter from the commercial complex and fixed energy power consumption of 148 units in every month. After removing the above defective meter the OP did not install new meter till 13-8-03. On 13-8-03 a new electric meter was installed being meter No.46293 but the OPs are not submitting the regular bills after installing the meter. As such, the complainant made several requests to OP No.1 to issue the bills and also requested to submit outstanding amount whereas, OP No.1 is not regularly sending the electricity bill to the complainant. The complainant made several reminders regarding irregularity of submitting bills to S.D.O. Naharkatia. From the evidence on record it is found that from 13-8-03 after being installation of new meter till January, 2005 no regular bills were submitted to the complainant by the OP No-1.  In the month of February, 2005 one bill of Rs.6870.24/- was sent to the complainant which the complainant paid to the OPs. Again from the month of March,2005 to June, 2005 the OP NO.1 submitted another bill of Rs.8513/- of 700 units which was also duly paid by the complainant. Ext-3 is the bill for amount of Rs.8513/-. OPs on the other hand have failed to show either by oral or documentary evidence that they are regularly issuing the bills to rebut and impair the evidence of PW-1. From perusal of the Ext.4(i) and Ext.4(ii) it appears that in the month of July, 2005 the OP No.1 issued an electricity bill No.8222 for an inexorbitant amount of Rs.67,166.97/- along with a statement of the pending arrear. From the above bill i.e. Ext.4(i) and 4(ii) it appears that OP suddenly submitted an electricity bill of Rs.67,166.97/- along with statement of pending arrear after two years of installation of new meter which put the complainant in unawkward position causing mental harassment.  The only source of income of the complainant was the rent from the market complex. It was not possible for him to pay such an inexorbitant amount as such, the complainant  approached to the OP No.4 for clarification of raising the above amount and also requested to allow him to deposit the amount in instalment basis but the OP did not agree. The  OP No.1 again in the month of August issued another electricity bill No.87676 for Rs.72,633.79/-. Ext-5 is the above bill. As the above bill was of huge amount and the OP did not allow him to pay in instalment the complainant could not pay the said amount in time and OP on 18-10-05 without serving any legal notice cut off the electricity connection from the complainant’s market complex. The owner or the shopkeepers of the said market complex left all the shops for non-availability of the electricity for which the complainant suffered huge loss.

         The complainant finding no other alternative went to the court for his help and filed Title Suit No.135/05 and Misc.(J) Case No.60/05 in the Court of Munsiff No.1, Dibrugarh who vide his judgment and order dated 30-1-06 directed the ASEB Naharkatia to give power supply to the complainant’s market complex on the basis that complainant is to deposit Rs.15,000/- as initial payment to the OP No.1 and the arrear amount in  five instalments within six months from the date of passing the order and judgment and the Misc. Case was disposed off accordingly. However, the Title Suit No.135/05 was dismissed for default. From the above evidence on record it appears that from 18-10-05 till 30-1-06 the shop of the complainant’s market were without electric connection about more than three months.

             However, it is admitted fact that for non-payment of arrear bill of Rs.72,633.79/- the electricity connection from the market complex of the complainant was disconnected on 18-10-05. The OPs have also not denied the above fact and the reinstallation of the electricity connection was done on 30-6-06 as per direction of the judgment and order of Civil Judge No.1 Jr. Division, Dibrugarh in Misc. (J) Case No.60/05. It is to be mentioned here that Arrear of huge accumulation of bills were not for the fault of the complainant but due to the deficiency in service and negligence cause by the OPs.

             DW-1 in his evidence stated that bills were served regularly to the complainant but the Board accepts no responsibility for the loss of bill on transit which is noted on the reverse of each energy bill. The obligation to receive the bill lies on the consumer and not on OPs if it is not received in time. However, the OPs failed to adduce any evidence that they issued regular bills to the complainant. From perusal of the evidence on record and documentary evidence of the complainant  it reveals that the new meter was installed on 13-8-03 whereas, no bills were issued till January, 2005 for which the complainant is not responsible. Apart from these on February, 2005 the OP No.1 sent one bill of Rs.6870.24/- and for the month of March,2005 to June, 2005 another bill of Rs.8513/- for 700 units., but suddenly in the month of July, 2005 the OPs issued an electricity bill of Rs.67,166.97/- and thereafter, in the month of August another bill of Rs.72,633.70/- which caused most inconvenience, undeserved situation. A person whose livelihood is only on the source of house rent is not in a position to pay Rs.72,633.70/- in one instalment. The OP had to issue regular bill to the complainant which would have caused no inconvenience to the complainant to pay the regular bill but to pay an inexorbitant amount will naturally cause harassment and mental agony to the complainant and as such, there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

        Upon considering the above fact this Forum comes to an unassailable conclusion that evidence disclosed by DW-1 it appears that his evidence has failed to rebut and impair the evidence of PW-1 as regard to the mental agony, harassment caused  by raising sudden amount of Rs.72,633.70/- so there lies deficiency on the part of OPs. As such, some order can rightly be passed on the basis of above unimpaired testimony of PW-1. Accordingly, the above unimpaired testimony of PW-1, OP has failed to show any reasonable ground to raise an inexorbitant amount which OPs have taken shelter of highly contradictory as well as inconsistent fact with regard to the raising of inexorbitant electricity bill including taking the shelter of falsehood which compelled the complainant to run from pillar to post seeking remedies for getting the electricity connection to his market complex. Due to disconnection of electricity by the OPs all the shop owners have vacated the shops for which the complainant suffered loss of goodwill of his commercial complex, mental harassment, loss of business and loss of reputation. The above act of the OPs it appears clear proof of deficiency in service and illegal trade practice committed by OPs in the matter of providing electricity service to the complainant.

         So this Forum is of the opinion that the complainant by leading his both oral and documentary evidence has been able to establish prima facie case of deficiency of service and illegal trade practice committed by OPs as defined in section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. As such, complainant is entitled to get some amount for loss of good will of his commercial complex, mental harassment and loss of business and loss of reputation caused by the negligence on the part of OPs.

         In view of the above the Forum directs the OP to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant for giving such mental and physical harassment, loss of good will in his commercial complex, mental harassment, loss of business and loss of reputation with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing this case till realisation. OPs are further directed to pay Rs.5000/- as cost of filing this case and all the amount ordered above shall be paid to the complainant within  two months from the date of this judgment through this Forum. 

Send copy of the judgment to OPs for compliance.