Date of Filing – 10.04.2017
Date of Hearing – 28.12.2017
The instant appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) is at the behest of the Opposite Parties to assail the Judgement/Final Order dated 27.02.2017 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dakshin Dinajpur at Balurghat (for short, Ld. District Forum) in Consumer Complaint No. 28/2016. By the impugned order, the Ld. District Forum allowed the consumer complaint lodged by the Respondent under Section 12 of the Act exparte with the direction upon the Opposite Party No.1 to treat the disputed bill (Exhibit – 5/6) dated 06.09.2016 as cancelled and to issue a fresh bill on the basis of average consumption of preceding six months and to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- for harassment and mental agony.
The Respondent herein being Complainant lodged the complaint asserting that being a resident of village – Gangarampur High School Para, P.O.+ P.S.- Gangarampur, Dist- Dakshin Dinajpur he obtained an electric connection on 28.02.2014 from West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (WBSEDCL) being Consumer Id. No.400843580 in his residence for domestic purpose being Meter No. L3345256. The complainant has stated that he was going on paying the bills regularly. On 03.08.2016 the OPs illegally raised a bill showing consumed units as 1206 claiming the bill amount of Rs.9,058/-. Complainant made payment of the said amount by two instalments on 20.08.2016 and 02.09.2016. On 27.08.2016 the OPs made an inspection of meter and reading of the meter has been endorsed in the Yellow Card mentioning the consumed unit as 6817 which according to the complainant was incorrect, fictitious and hypothetical. On 06.09.2016 OPs made another bill showing an amount of Rs.37,313/-. On 10.09.2016 complainant made an application for correction of the said bill but it turned a deaf ear. Hence, the respondent approached the Ld. District Forum with prayer for certain directions upon the opposite parties, viz. – (a) to correct the fictitious, hypothecated bills, to arrange of making the suitable bills as per units so consummated on monthly basis by the complainant and to install a new meter, compensation of Rs.50,000/- for harassment and mental agony etc.
Despite service of notice, the Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2/Appellants did not contest.
After assessing the materials on record, the Ld. District Forum by the impugned judgement/final order allowed the complaint with certain directions upon the opposite parties as indicated above. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, the opposite parties have come up in this Commission with the present appeal.
I have scrutinised the materials on record and considered the submission advanced by the Ld. Advocates appearing for the parties.
Undisputedly, Respondent being a resident of village – Gangarampur High School Para, P.O.+ P.S.- Gangarampur, Dist- Dakshin Dinajpur obtained electric connection in his residence for domestic purposes being Consumer Id. No.400843580 being Meter No.L3345256 on 28.02.2014. The respondent was going on paying the bills regularly. The whole dispute cropped up with regard to a bill amounting to Rs.37,313/- which was issued on the basis of supervisory meter reading in the residence of respondent on 19.08.2016 when it was noticed that final reading found in the meter was 6903 units.
From the Memorandum of Appeal itself, it reveals that the meter reader did not take meter reading at regular interval and as such consumptions of units where accumulated and it has been found on an inspection made by officers of the Distribution Licensee. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellants that the meter reader under the control of contractor or agency who was allotted the LOA/Job Contractor to carry out meter reading for designated area but they did not perform their duties properly. Needless to say, such LOA/Job Contractor was appointed by the WBSEDCL and as such the licensing authority was under obligation to see that the Job Contractor is regularly taking meter reading to each consumer under their domain diligently and record the feed back to the consumer. The WBSEDCL/appellants cannot absolve their responsibility by blaming the LOA/Job Contractor. This shortcoming on the part of WBSEDCL/Appellants clearly indicates that they were deficient in rendering services to a consumer inasmuch as the man of WBSEDCL is under obligation to collect the regular meter reading prior to raise any bill and when it is quite apparent that the man of WBSEDCL did not take proper meter reading at regular interval prior to raising bill to a consumer, certainly, they were deficient in rendering services in accordance with Section 2(1)(g) read with Section 2(1)(o) of the Act.
It is now well settled that in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported (2013) 8 SCC 491[U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. –Vs. – Anis Ahmed] the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 runs parallel for giving redressal to any person, who falls within the meaning of ‘consumer’ as defined in Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act but it is limited to the dispute relating to ‘unfair trade practice’ or a ‘restrictive trade practice’ adopted by the service provider or if the ‘consumer’ suffers from deficiency in service or hazardous service or the service provider has charged a price in excess of the price fixed by or under any law.
Now, the Regulation No.3.5 of West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission published in Kolkata Gazette (Extra-Ordinary) dated 07.08.2013 being notification No. 55, which has a statutory effect provides –
“3.5.1(a) – In case, there is any dispute in respect of the billed amount, the consumer may lodged a complaint with the Grievance Redressal Officer or the Central Grievance Redressal Officer of the licensee and thereafter to the Ombudsman in appeal against the order of the Grievance Redressal Officer or the Central Grievance Redressal Officer, in accordance with the provisions of the concerned Regulations. In such a case, the aggrieved consumer, pending disposal of the dispute, may, under protest, pay the lesser amount out of the following two options: -
- an amount equal to the sum claimed from him in the disputed bill, or
- an amount equal to the electricity charges due from him for each month calculated on the basis of average charge of electricity paid by him during the preceding six months,
the amount so calculated provisionally as per Clause (ii) above by the licensee and tendered by the consumer shall be accepted by the licensee against that bill on provisional basis”.
The provisions of Regulation 3.5.2 reads as under:-
“3.5.2. If any agreed consumer makes a provisional payment, as aforesaid, no penal measure including this connection for non-payment shall be taken against him till the dispute is settled either at the level of the Grievance Redressal Officer or the Central Grievance Redressal Officer or the Ombudsman, as the case may be. However, imposition of a delayed payment, surcharge, if applicable shall not count towards a penal measure for this purpose”.
The most important aspect of the matter is that the respondent did not take any pain to file any application for appointment of an expert of a competent authority like – IIT, Kharagpur or BESU, Shivpur or any expert from any Engineering College of North Bengal to prove that the alleged bill showing meter of 6903 as per inspection dated 19.08.2016 was wrong or baseless. Had it been so, it could have been said that the order regarding cancellation of disputed bill is correct but when there is no evidence to that effect and the respondent has failed to advance any cogent evidence by appointing by an expert that the meter reading was defective, the Ld. District Forum had no reason to cancel the bill simply on the ground that the man of WBSEDCL was at fault for not recording the meter reading at regular interval. Therefore, I am not in agreement with the Ld. District Forum in cancelling the disputed bill (Ext. 5/6) as cancelled.
Now, the question comes up for consideration as to whether the Ld. District Forum was justified in imposing a compensation of Rs.10,000/- and that too upon the licensing authority i.e. WBSEDCL without fixing responsibility of the officer/staff concerned at whose fault the untoward incident has happened.
To deal with the situation, it would be worthwhile to reproduce the provision of Section 14(1)(d) of the Act which runs as follows –
“14. Finding of the District Forum. – (1) if, after the proceeding conducted under Section 13, the District Forum is satisfied that the goods complaint against suffer from any of the defects specified in the complaint or that any of the allegations contained in the complaint about the services are proved, it shall issue an order to the opposite party directing him to do one or more of the following things, namely :
...........
(d) to pay such amount as may be awarded by it as compensation to the consumer for any loss or injury suffered by the consumer due to the negligence of the opposite party”.
The sine qua non for entitlement of compensation is proof of loss or injury suffered by the consumer due to the negligence of the opposite party. Once the said conditions are satisfied, the Consumer Forum would have to decide the quantum of compensation to which the consumer is entitled. There cannot be any dispute that the computation of compensation has to be fair, reasonable and commensurate to the loss or injury. There is a duty cast on the Consumer Forum to take into account all relevant factors for arriving at the compensation to be paid.
Therefore, the assessment of compensation depends upon the facts and circumstances of the particular case. In the instant case, the WBSEDCL has committed a serious fault by not recording the meter reading at the interval of every three months causing a huge bill accumulated to the extent of Rs.37,313/-. The authority cannot take meter reading on their own whim and fancy causing serious inconveniences to the consumer and keeping in view of the same, I am in agreement with the Ld. District Forum in imposing a compensation of Rs.10,000/-.
Needless to say, when a Court/Forum directs payment of compensation to the State or its undertaking, the ultimate sufferer is the common man. It is the tax payers money which is paid for inaction of those who are entrusted under the Act to discharge the duties in accordance with law. It is, therefore, necessary that when the Forum is satisfied that a complainant is entitled to compensation for harassment or mental agony it should direct the department concerned to pay the amount to the complainant/respondent from the public fund immediately but to recover the same from those who are found responsible for such unpardonable behaviour by dividing it proportionately where there are more than one functionaries.
In a decision reported in (1994) 1 CPR 569 (Lucknow Development Authority – Vs. – M.K. Gupta) the Hon’ble Apex Court directed that the authority to fix the responsibility of the officers who are responsible for causing harassment and agony to the respondent within a period of six months from a copy of this order is produced or served on it and the Court further ordered that the amount of compensation of Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Commission for mental harassment shall be recovered for such officers proportionately from their salary.
In view of the above, the impugned order is modified only to the extent that the appellants/OPs shall pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent/complainant. The Chairman-cum-Director, WBSEDCL is directed to fix the responsibility of the officers/employees concerned for whose fault the meter reading was not taken at regular interval causing immense financial pressure upon the respondent/complainant and to recover the entire amount of Rs.10,000/- within six (6) months from the officers/staff who are responsible for causing harassment and agony to the respondent/complainant from their salaries proportionately. However, the above amount must be paid by the licensing authority/WBSEDCL to the respondent/complainant within 60 days from date otherwise, the amount shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. from date till its realisation.
It is made clear that if any application is filed by the respondent/complainant before Regional Grievance Officer in accordance with the Regulation No.3.5.1 of Notification No.55/WBERC dated 07.08.2013 regarding billing dispute, the same shall be disposed of within 3 months in accordance with law and if the respondent/complainant feels aggrieved against such order, he may prefer an appeal before Ombudsman constituted under the Electricity Act.
With the above observations and directions, the instant appeal stands disposed of.
The Registrar of the Commission is directed to send a copy of this order to the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dakshin Dinajpur at Balurghat for information. The Registrar is also directed to send a copy of the order to the Chairman & Managing Director, WBSEDCL, Vidyut Bhavan, Salt Lake City for information and compliance.
