Date of Filing – 03.11.2015
Date of Hearing – 07.04.2017
The instant appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) is at the behest of Opposite Party i.e. Station Manager, Jangipur CCC, WBSEDCL to impeach the Final Order dated 27.07.2015 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Murshidabad at Berhampore (for short, Ld. District Forum) in Consumer Complaint no. 16/2015. By the impugned order, the Ld. District Forum allowed the consumer complaint lodged by Respondent Smt. Maya Sanyal under Section 12 of the Act with the direction upon the Appellant to prepare a fresh bill for the period from October, 2014 to March, 2015 for six months taking slab benefit and to take 182 units a possible consumption of the complainant for three months and to cancel the disputed bills for the period from October, 2014 – December, 2014 amounting to Rs.57,727/- and Jan-2015 to March, 2015 amounting to Rs.39,283/-. It has also been directed upon the Appellant not to collect or demand the arrear bill for the disputed period and to replace the existing meter by new one, failing which the appellant shall pay cost @ Rs.100/- for each day’s delay.
The Respondent herein being Complainant initiated the complaint stating that her husband Narottam Sanyal, since deceased was a consumer under WBSEDCL being Consumer Id. 313118829 and after his death, she is going on paying bills regularly. On 05.01.2015 the opposite party supplied a bill of Rs.57,727/- and on receiving the same, she was surprised. On 07.01.2015 she made a prayer to the opposite party to make a suitable remedy but on 19.01.2015 the opposite party threatened her unless the amount of bill is paid, the service line would be disconnected. Hence, the respondent approached the Ld. District Forum with prayer for direction upon the licensing authority/WBSEDCL to change the electric meter immediately, to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-, cost of the litigation etc.
The appellant being OP by filing a written version disputed and denied the allegations made by the complainant. The OPs asserted that the subject bill was examined by linesman on 05.01.2015 and found that the bill has been raised as per consumption load.
After evaluation of materials on record, the Ld. District Forum by the impugned order allowed the complaint with the direction upon the OP/WBSEDCL as indicated above, which prompted the OP to come up in this Commission with the present appeal.
Mr. Alok Mukhopadhyay, Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has submitted that the Ld. District Forum has passed the order on surmise and conjecture and in the decision making process has not observed anything how the Ld. District Forum has arrived at a conclusion that the OP was deficient in rendering services to the respondent. Ld. Advocate for appellant has also urged that unless the respondent approached to the Grievance Redressal Officer of WBSEDCL or seek an appointment of a technical person, it would not be possible to determine whether the meter reading was correct or not.
Mr. Rahit Kumr Shaw, Ld. Advocate for the Respondent, on the contrary has submitted that the consumption of electricity of the Respondent is apparently an inflated one. He has submitted that the meter card shows that reading 1697 units on 30.06.2014 and 8655 units on 05.01.2014 certainly indicates some defects and as such the Respondent has prayed for change of electric meter.
I have considered the submission advanced by the Ld. Advocates appearing for the parties and scrutinised the materials on record.
Upon hearing the Ld. Advocates appearing for the parties, it has come to surface that the husband of the respondent was a consumer of electricity under the appellant being Consumer Id.313118829. The husband of the respondent namely Narottam Sanyal is no more and on account of death of her husband, respondent did not make any attempt to transfer the meter in her name in place of name of her deceased husband, which is all fairness should have been done.
Be that as it may, the whole dispute cropped up on account of raising a bill of Rs.57,727/- on 05.01.2015. According to the respondent/complainant the bill raised by the licensing authority is excessive and inflated. On the other hand, on behalf of the appellant it has been categorically stated that the meter reading was perfectly correct and the reading was made basing upon the consumption of electricity made by the respondent. Admittedly, the complainant did not approach CGRO/RGRO or did not make any application before the Ld. District Forum for appointment of an expert in accordance with Section 13(4) of the Act to ascertain the real controversy. Needless to say, when the appellant/licensing authority has denied about defect of meter, certainly the burden of proof lies upon the complainant to substantiate that the meter was really defective.
It is now well settled that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. – vs. – Anis Ahmad reported in 2013 (3) CPR 670, 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) 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 12.09.2007 being Notification No.36/WBERC provides –
“3.5.1(a) – In case, there is any dispute in respect of the billed amount, the consumer may lodge a complaint with the grievance redressal officer, if the consumer is aggrieved by the order of the Grievance Redressal Officer, in accordance with the provisions of the concerned Regulations, in such a case, the aggrieved consumer may under protest, pay –
- an amount equal to the sum claimed from him in the dispute bill, or
- an amount equal to the electricity charges due from him for each month calculated on the basis of average charge for electricity paid by him during the preceding six months,
whichever is less pending disposal of the dispute.
(b) the amount so calculated provisionally under clause (ii) by the licensee and tendered by the consumer shall be accepted by the licensee against that bill on provisional basis”.
Nowhere in the petition of complaint, the respondent has prayed for calculation of electric charges on the basis of average charge of electricity paid by him during the preceding six months or the Ld. District Forum did not ask the complainant to produce the preceding two bills for six months so that the Regulation No.3.5 of WBERC may be followed. Needless to say, there is no mechanism before a Consumer Forum by which it can be determined whether the meter in question is defective or not. Naturally, the question comes up how the dispute will be adjudicated without applying the procedure as mentioned in Regulation 3.5 relating to payment of disputed bills. The Ld. District Forum has passed an order directing the appellant not to collect any bill for the month between October, 2014 to December, 2014 and January, 2015 to March, 2015 i.e. for six months is contrary to Regulation 3.5 of WBERC. The Ld. District Forum has not assigned any reason how it has come to a conclusion that the meter was defective or the OP was deficient in rendering services.
The respondent/complainant had to approach either the Greivance Redressal Officer as prescribed in WBERC or should have filed an application for appointment of an expert to ascertain whether the meter in question is defective or not.
Therefore, after giving due consideration to the submission of the Ld. Advocates for the parties when it reveals that the Ld. District Forum has not passed the order basing upon the report of any expert or any competent officer of WBSEDCL in arriving at a decision that the meter was defective or the OP was negligent in rendering service, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is allowed on contest but without any order as to costs.
The impugned Final Order is hereby set aside.
The case is remitted back on remand with a direction upon the parties to appear before the Ld. District Forum on 15.05.2017 positively and on that date, the respondent/complainant is directed to file electric bills of preceding six months of the disputed bill and the Ld. District Forum will ask the complainant to make payment in respect of average charge of electricity as provided in Regulation No.3.5.1(a)(ii). The respondent/complainant is also directed to file an application for appointment of an expert either from IIT, Kharagpur or from BESU, Howrah for ascertaining whether the disputed meter is correct or not and the said cost shall be borne by the complainant and if it is found that meter is defective, the said cost will be imposed upon the OP/WBSEDCL.
The Registrar of the Commission is directed to send a copy of this order to the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Murshidabad at Berhampore for information.
