Hon’ble Mr. Ajeya Matilal, Presiding Member
Being aggrieved by dissatisfied with final order dt. 16.03.2020 passed by DCDRF allowing case No. CC/253/2017, the appellant/OP preferred this appeal.
The fact of the case is in short like that the OP No. 1 is the branch office of the OP No. 2 company. The complainant applied for a new connection for his premises in the year 1996. In reply one quotation was issued and the complainant deposited Rs.900/- in terms of the quotation and the complainant being the present respondent paid the said amount. After that, the appellant provided with electric connection having Id No. 162042243. The said amount was received by the appellant through bills since 1998 under the head of domestic meter. But suddenly in the year 1999 the complainant received a bill for the period from November 1998, December, 1998 and January, 1998 computing the rate of bill under commercial head. The complainant did not make any application for conversion of the electric meter from domestic to commercial category but without any intimation from the end of the complainant, the appellant raised bill in respect of the said meter under commercial head. The respondent went to the office of the appellant and the appellant promised to look into the matter. The respondent never applied for conversion of his electric meter from domestic to commercial. But unfortunately without any intimation from the respondent, bill was raised in respect of the above meter under commercial head. The respondent kept on paying on the same rate for next five months at the commercial rate, but after that as the appellant did not fulfil their promise, so the respondent abstained from paying the amounts raised in subsequent bills. So the connection was disconnected by the Appellant No. 1. After elapsing of few years in the month of December 2016, the appellant applied for restoration of his electric connection. After receiving the same the Respondent no. 1 issued another letter dt. 29.12.2016 asking him to deposit the outstanding amount Rs,2406/- for reconnecting the service. The appellant deposited the said sum along with Rs.100/- for re-connection charges on 17.01.2017. At that time it was found that the meter was not working properly. So, another communication was made by the Respondent to the Appellant asking him to deposit further amount of Rs.622/-. The appellant paid the amount of Rs.622 along with Rs.100/- on 22.05.2017 for new meter on account of disconnection and de-connection charges. The complainant sends an advocate’s notice to the respondent stating that the bail amount claimed since 1998-1999 was totally illegal and he prayed for returning the entire amount. The respondent gave a vague reply to the complainant. So the complainant filed the instant case for restoration of connection being consumer Id No. 162042243 standing in the name of the complainant to domestic category along with a prayer of a refund of Rs.25,000/- and compensation of Rs.2 lakhs with other reliefs.
The respondent being the OP of the Complaint case contested the case by filing a written version. It is stated that the complainant’s original meter vide service connection No. N0075 was a commercial meter against consumer ID No. 162042243 and the complainant also sent a letter on 14.12.2016 to the OP No. 1, the Station Manager concerned requesting him for reconnection of his service connection and the complainant use the same for business purpose, so the OP demanded electric charges from the complainant according to the consumption of electricity and L.P.S.C (Interest) charges amounting to Rs.15,938.17P. The complainant for misguiding the OP submitted that previous commercial meter was lost and for that reason he lodged a G.D.E to escape the payment of arrear amount. According to the OP the complainant is not a consumer because the meter was commercial. As the complainant did not pay the electric charges, so the OP disconnected the electric connection. So the OP prayed for dismissal of the case.
For the proper adjudication of the disputes between the parties the Ld. Trial Forum framed 4 points:-
- Whether the complainant is a consumer of the OP or not.
- Whether this forum has territorial of the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case.
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the OP.
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief or not.
All these points were decided in favour of the complainant in course of arguments by the Ld. Advocate for the respondent.
It is also argued that the OPs of the instant case failed to produce any documents from which it would reveal that the complainant applied for converting the meter from domestic electric supply connection to commercial electric supply connection.
It appears from bill dt. 08.09.2010 that the complainant paid the bill under the head of domestic connection, but it appears from the subsequent bill 11/12-1/1998-99 that the complainant paid the bill under the head of commercial connection.
Our attention was drawn to letter dt. 14.12.2016, wherein the complainant applied to the Station Manager Nabagram Group Electric Supply, where he prayed for reconnection of the above service connection under the category of commercial connection. So it appears from the letter that subsequently complainant admitted that it was a commercial connection. It appears from the discussion that the matter relates to commercial disputes between the parties. So, it is not within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. As per 3.5.1 of Notification No. 55WBERC dt. 07.08.2013.
In case there is any dispute in respect of the billed amount, the consumer may lodge 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 Rederssal Officer or the Central Grievance Redressal Officer, if the consumer is aggrieved by the order of the Grievance Redressal Oficer or the Central Grievance Redressal Officer, in accordance with the provisions of the concerned Regulations. In such 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 for 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.
But although there is a dispute between the parties regarding billed amount, the respondent/complainant did not lodge any complaint with the Grievance Redressal Officer or the Central Grievance Redressal Officer as the case may be.
So, in view of the aforesaid discussion we are of the view that the impugned order cannot be sustained and it should be set aside. Hence, it is ordered the appeal is allowed on contest and impugned order is set aside. The Liberty is given to the respondent/complainant to approach appropriate forum in accordance with Notification No. 55/WBERC dt. 0708.2013 in Kolkata Gazette and if such complaint is filed with requisites, the RGRO or CGRO concerned, as the case may be, is requested to dispose of the same within 3 months from the date of filing of such complaints in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to the costs. The Registrar of this Commission is directed to send a copy of the order to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hooghly at Chinsura for information and necessary action.
