Dt. 20.07.2015

JAGANNATH BAG, MEMBER

            The present appeal is directed against the order dated 08.01.2014 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South 24 Parganas, in CC Case No. 288/2013, whereby the Complaint was decreed in part on contest with cost against the OPs.

          The complaint case, in brief, was as follows:

          The Complainant obtained electricity connection from the OP at his premises in October 2010. He paid all bills raised by the OP till December 2011 against meter No. 259921 . In a bill raised for the period from January to March 2012 , the meter number was shown to be H257878 in place of H259921. The bill amount was Rs.16,291/-. A duplicate copy of the bill collected on 28.08.2012 showed another amount of Rs. 2059 as outstanding for the period from April 2012 to August 2012. Subsequently, the bill amount of Rs.16,291/- was increased to Rs.16,771/-. The OP disconnected electricity line without intimation. From enquiry with the concerned authority about his complain, the Complainant could not get any satisfactory reply . He wrote to  the Station Master, Customer Care Centre, WBSEDCL , Pailan, Bishnupur and expressed his grievance about the illegal disconnection but nothing was heard from them. At last the Complainant under compelling circumstances paid an amount of Rs.18,126/- on 14.06.2013, but reconnection was not effected. The main grievance of the Complainant was that though he had been allotted meter number H259921, the excessive bill in question was raised illegally in respect of meter number H257878 and the original meter No.H 259921 was removed without any intimation to him, which act of the OP was a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Accordingly,  the complaint was lodged with a prayer for direction upon the OPs to give reconnection of electricity to the Complainant’s premises and also for compensation  of Rs.10,000/- etc.

          The complaint was contested by the OPs by filing W.V, wherein it was stated that the connection was effected on 07.10.2010 by installing meter No. H257878, though in the bill, it was wrongly recorded as H259921 which has been rectified subsequently. It was further stated that on the basis of the meter reading there was consumption of 2494 units since effecting the electricity connection and the bill in question was raised accordingly. It was admitted that the electricity line was disconnected on 02.06.2012 upon service of defaulter notice as per norm on ground of non-payment of outstanding bill. As the service connection was lying disconnected for more than six months, the same was deemed permanently  disconnected as per standing Regulation of WBERC. Without completion of necessary formalities including payment of the outstanding amount of Rs.18,126/- and submission of application for getting power supply as a new service connection  as per standing Regulations of WBERC, reconnection could not be given. Further, it was asserted that the claim of the Complainant in regard to the alleged inflated bill should have been filed before RGRO as per the Electricity Act 2003 and Regulations made thereunder. In case of dissatisfaction with the decision of such Grievance Redressal Office, an appeal could be preferred before the Ld. Ombudsman which the Complainant ignored and in such a position, the complaint was liable to be dismissed.

          Ld. Forum below after having gone through the materials on record including evidence on affidavit filed by the Complainant, questionnaire filed by the OPs and also evidence filed by the OPs and questionnaire by the Complainant and replies  to such questionnaire, observed that the OPs admitted in their W.V. (Para-5) that in the bill the actual/correct meter number of the Complainant was not written. It was observed that for irresponsible and negligent act on the part of the OPs , the Complainant has to suffer a lot and the Complainant has been compelled to pay the alleged arbitrary and  inflated bill amount. But, in spite of payment of the disputed bill, reconnection has not been made and no reply has been sent to the Complainant. Accordingly, the Ld. Forum below passed an order directing the OPs to give reconnection of electricity within 7 days from the date of order to the Complainant’s premises. The OPs were also directed to pay a cost of Rs. 10,000/- and penalty /punitive damages of Rs.5,00,000/- out of which a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to be paid to the Complainant and the balance amount to  be deposited with the Consumer Welfare Fund. The OPs were further directed to refund the bill amount received on 14.06.2013 for the period from January to March 2012 with liberty to issue fresh and correct bill to the Complainant for the said period.

          Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of the Ld. Forum below, the Appellants have come up before this Commission for setting aside the impugned order.

          Ld. Advocate appearing for the Appellant submitted that the previous bills prior to January 2012 were wrongly raised showing a different meter i.e., meter No. H259921 in place of actual meter number H257878. The bill in question was not paid by the Respondent / Complainant in spite of due notice . As a result, the line was disconnected and remained  so disconnected for more than 6 months. The service connection was deemed to have been permanently disconnected and hence application for new connection was asked for . The Complainant having not completed all necessary formalities, reconnection was not given.  Further, the matter of complaint should have been dismissed by the Ld. Forum below as Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the billing dispute as in the present case. Ld. Forum’s order to pay a penalty/punitive damages of Rs. 5,00,000/- and other costs is illegal and not within the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum. Ld. Advocate cited the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as reported in 2013 AIR SCW 3047 holding that order to deposit compensation in consumer legal aid account without giving reasons is not legally tenable. The impugned order, therefore, be set aside.

          Ld. Advocate appearing for the Respondent submitted that the electricity bills as raised by the service provider on the basis of reading in the meter number H257878 was not valid as such meter was not installed at the premises of the Respondent / Complainant. It has been admitted by the service provider that the earlier bills were not raised by recording the units shown in meter number H257878 which is claimed  to have been installed. There was no intimation about any rectification of meter or change from meter number H259921 to H257878. Any removal of the existing meter should have been intimated to the consumer before hand. In the absence of any such step by the service provider, the action taken by them was highly irregular and motivated. The bill prepared in respect of the rectified meter number H257878 was not payable by the Complainant and he was illegally and arbitrarily burdened with the bill of Rs.18,126/-. In spite of payment of such bill the reconnection was not given which is a clear deficiency in service on the part of the OP / Appellant. Ld. Forum has considered all  aspects and passed the reasoned order which be upheld.

                                   Decision with Reasons

          We have gone through the memorandum of appeal together with copies of the impugned order , the petition of complaint , the W.V. filed by the Ld. Forum below and copies of electricity bills showing the meter number as H259921 . LCR has been consulted.

          The point for consideration is whether the impugned order requires any interference on any cogent ground.

          It is striking to note that the Appellant has raised electricity bills in respect of meter number H259921 for more than a year since its installation in October 2010 at the premises of the Complainant/Respondent. Thereafter, a hefty bill was raised showing the meter number H257878. How the  mistake had taken place has not been clarified by the Appellant in any manner. The mistake has been simply admitted by stating that in the bill the meter number was wrongly recorded as H259921 . It was quite natural on the part of the Complainant/Respondent to agitate as he received a bill of Rs. 16,771/- quite unexpectedly and that too with the mention of such a meter as was not recorded in his earlier bills or installed at his premises. It was also quite natural on the part of the Complainant/Consumer to raise queries as to the authenticity of the bill  before the OP service provider. Such queries were never replied to and he was ultimately compelled to pay the sum of Rs. 18,126/- before applying afresh for getting power supply as a new consumer. Such act on the part of the OPs / Appellants was no doubt a deficiency in service that harassed the Complainant. Such act of the OP Appellant appears to have been covered up by saying that the matter was a billing dispute and as such the Complainant should have moved the RGRO for redressal. In fact, the main question for the Complainant was how the meter in his bill could be changed or rectified without any intimation. Ld. Forum below has dealt with the matter in detail and appears to be convinced that there was no fault on the part of the Complainant and there was a gross deficiency of the service in not restoring the electricity connection in spite of deposit of the bill of Rs. 18,126/- on 14.06.2013. However, direction of the Ld. Forum below for payment of a penalty/punitive damages of Rs.5,00,000/- appears to be not backed by adequate  reasons . In that position we are inclined to hold that the said amount  may be expunged from the impugned order , apart from modification of the amount of cost/compensation of Rs.10,000/- as awarded by the Ld. Forum below. The restoration of electric connection which is said to have been carried out by the Appellant on 11.02.2014 is noted . The impugned order is decided to be modified accordingly. Hence,

                                                Ordered

That the appeal be and the same is allowed in part with modification of the impugned order to the effects that the direction of the Ld. Forum below to pay penalty/punitive damages of Rs.5,00,000/-shall be deemed to have been deleted and that the cost/compensation of Rs.5,000/-instead of Rs.10000/-  shall be paid to the Respondent/Complainant within a period of 40 days from the date of this order. Other parts of the impugned order shall remain unchanged. There shall be no separate order as to cost.

          Let a copy of this order be sent to the LD. Forum below along with the LCR.