Dt.28.07.15

JAGANNATH BAG, MEMBER

            The present appeal is directed against the order dated 27.06.2013 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar, in Case No. DF/52/2012, whereby the complaint was allowed on contest with cost and compensation against the OPs, apart from direction upon the Complainant to pay the outstanding electric bills .

          The Complainant’s case, in brief, was as follows:

          The Complainant , being the owner of a sweetmeat shop has been enjoying electricity as supplied by the OPs. Though for sometime the Complainant got service properly, he noticed that the bills prepared by the OPs were not in consistence  with the volume of electricity consumed through his meter and also noticed that the meter was not keeping reading properly as it was found to be defective. He sent an application with allegation of defective meter on 10.02.2011 followed by another application dated 05.03.2011. No action being taken, another application dated 12.09.2011 was sent to the OPs. No step was taken by the OPs to check the meter or to replace the meter by a new one. He was compelled to pay the inflated bills and suffered harassment and mental agony. In that situation , the complaint petition was filed with prayer for relief.

          The compliant was contested by the OPs who denied all material allegations in their W.V. and contended, inter alia, that the compliant was not maintainable. It was stated that electricity was consumed for a lot of accessories like Refrigerator, Mixer, Fans , Bulbs , Colour TV etc., being used in the commercial establishment of the Complainant .It was submitted that after receiving the complaint application from the Complainant , their chargeman was instructed to inspect the meter , but it was reported by the chargeman that no abnormality was found in the existing meter and the meter was working correctly . There was no question of raising of excessive bills. On the contrary it was alleged that the Complainant did not pay electricity bills for the period from August 2011 to May 2012 amounting to Rs. 6,103/- . The allegations brought up by the Complainant were false and the complaint deserved to be dismissed with cost.

          Ld. Forum below after having gone through the materials on record including the petition of complaint , W.V. , evidence on affidavit together with other documents, as filed  by and relied upon by the parties, observed that the Complainant is enjoying electricity with payment as per consumption and is a consumer under the O.Ps. It was also observed that the OPs could not produce any supporting material to show that the chargeman inspected the meter and submitted a report about no defect in the meter. It was, at the same time , observed that the Complainant did not  pay the electricity bills for the period from August 2011 to May 2012 amounting to Rs. 6.103/-.  Ld. Forum below was of the view that the OP should have taken proper and immediate steps to replace the existing meter in question . Accordingly, Ld. Forum below allowed the complaint against the OPs with cost of Rs. 3,000/-. A compensation of Rs.2,000/- was also awarded. Further, the Complainant was directed to pay the bills for the period from August 2011 to May 2012 within 20 days from the date of the order whereupon the OP would replace the meter by a new one within 2 days there from. Failure of either of the parties in complying with the order of the Ld. Forum below would attract a fine of Rs. 300/- per day .

          Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of the Ld. Forum below, the Appellant has come up before this Commission with prayer for direction to set aside the impugned order.

          As the Respondent remained absent inspite of service of notice, the matter was heard ex parte.   

          Ld. Advocate appearing for the Appellant submitted that the Complainant / Respondent failed to pay electric bills for a long period on the plea that the bills were excessive in nature and  the meter being defective caused abnormal reading of units purported to have been consumed. The complaint matter was related to the electric bills which he did not pay and prayed for rectification of his electric bills. Such, complaint should have been lodged before the CGRO under the Electricity Act and Regulations made there under. The Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate such matter of billing dispute, or any dispute in regard to defective meter. The order of the Ld. Forum below has been passed in irregular manner. The Complainant having not paid the electric bills for the period from August 2011 to May 2012 unauthorizedly used electricity which has been noted by the Ld. Forum below , and it has been ordered that the Complainant / Appellant has to pay the bills as raised by the Appellant which itself shows that the bills have not been questioned . If that is so , the issue of a defective meter can not come into picture. Ld. Forums order suffers from material irregularity in directing the Ld. Forum below to replace the existing meter without any valid cause. In fact, this being a billing dispute , Ld. Forum should have dismissed the complaint with direction to refer the dispute to the CGRO for adjudication after hearing as per the legal provisions of the electricity Act and Regulations made there under. There being no deficiency in service on the part of the service provider , the order passed by the Ld. Forum below may be set aside.

                                          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 OP service provider before the Ld. Forum below and other papers.

          The fact goes that the Respondent /Complainant is a consumer under the OP / Appellant giving electricity service  for consideration as observed by the Ld. Forum below .  

          The allegation of the Complainant/ Respondent was related to  the defect in the meter No. 45545807 installed at his sweet meat shop . He complained about defective meter with a prayer for replacement of the same as such defective meter was causing excessive bills. The Appellant /OP in their submission before the Ld. Forum below stated that they sent their charge man to inspect the alleged defective meter but nothing abnormal was found in the existing meter . On the basis of the report of the charge man , no step was taken to replace the meter.

         On the other hand the Respondent /Complainant kept his electricity bills un-paid and made applications on 3 occasions alleging abnormal meter reading of electricity units in his meter. Ld. Forum below has observed that in support of the statement of the OP/Appellant that a charge man was sent to inspect the meter and he found the same in proper running condition has not been supported by any report of the said charge man showing that the meter has been inspected and found correct. That being the case Ld. Forum’s observation that there is a defect in the meter and the same was not properly checked followed by a written report is no doubt an important fact, but then the bills raised by the Appellant on the basis of the readings in the meter may not be treated as authentic. Ld. Forum’s direction to replace the meter on the one hand and to pay the bills as raised on the basis of readings in such meter on the other hand appears to be self contradictory. Either the meter should be treated as defective and the bills shall be treated as wrongly raised or the meter should be treated as defect free and the bills shall be confirmed .In the present case Ld. Forum below has accepted the fact of defective meter, then asking the Complainant/Respondent to pay bills on the basis of the readings of the defective meter does not appear to be justified. In the facts and circumstances as discussed the Complainant should move the CGRO as provided under the Electricity Act and Regulations made there under for redressal of his grievance about the inflated bill and the defective meter. More so, in view of the fact that the Ld. Forum below has made an error in allowing two contradictory aspersions of the two contending parties. We are, therefore, inclined to hold that the impugned order suffers from material irregularity and jurisdictional error and deserves to be set aside.   Hence,

                                                Ordered

That the appeal be and the same is allowed on contest. The impugned order is set aside. Consequently , the complaint case stands dismissed.There shall be no order as to costs.