The instant appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) is at the behest of Opposite Parties to impeach the Judgement/Final Order dated 20.09.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dakshin Dinajpur at Balurghat (for short, Ld. District Forum) in Consumer Complaint No. 21/2017. By the impugned order, the Ld. District Forum allowed the complaint lodged by the Respondent Sri Patras Minji under Section 12 of the Act with cost of Rs.5,000/- with the direction upon the Opposite Parties/Appellants to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant for harassment and mental agony which must be paid within a month in default the amount shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. till its realisation. The OPs were also debarred from disconnecting the electric connection of the complainant and they can only disconnect it when their bill, lawfully prepared and served upon the complainant, is not paid by the complainant. The OPs are at liberty to demand fixed charge from the complainant without being swerved by any discussion as made earlier, for the period of six disputed bills and bill dated 04.04.2017 from May, 2013 to October, 2015 subject to adjustment of Rs.39,790/- in compliance of order in CC/24/2015.
The Respondent herein being Complainant lodged the complaint before the Ld. District Forum stating that being an agriculturist, he is a consumer under the West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (WBSEDCL) being Consumer Id. No.433014112 against a STW Connection for consuming electricity for his cultivation and on the allegation of deficiency in services on the part of service provider, the respondent approached the Ld. District Forum with prayer for following reliefs, viz. – (a) an order to declare the bills dated 08.02.2016, 04.04.2016, 02.06.2016, 02.12.2016, 03.02.2017 and 04.04.2017 are illegal and baseless against Consumer Id. No.433014112; (b) an order to pay the electric bill from date of reconnection i.e. from 26.11.2014 till 06.03.2017; (c) an order for reconnection immediately for cultivation purpose; (d) an order not to disconnect the line after reconnection till the disposal of the case; (e) an order directing the OPs to send regular bill to the complainant against the consumption of electricity from date reconnection and onwards; (f) to pay compensation of Rs.80,000/- etc.
The Appellants being OPs by filing a written version have stated that a new meter has been installed on 12.06.2017 vide Meter No.YX021719 and it is now under data based system. The OPs have stated that the complainant has not filed minimum charge amount as required to be paid under West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission (WBERC) and as there is no deficiency, the complaint should be dismissed.
After perusal of the record and the documents filed by the parties, the Ld. District Forum by the impugned order allowed the complaint with certain directions upon the opposite parties, as mentioned above. Challenging the said order, the opposite parties have come up in this Commission with the present appeal.
Mr. Srijan Nayak, Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has submitted that it was a purely billing dispute and the Ld. District Forum should not have entertained the complaint in view of Notification No.55/WBERC dated 07th August, 2013. He has further submitted that in case of any dispute in respect of billed amount, in accordance with Regulation 3.5.1, the respondent should have approached the Grievance Redressal Officer or the Central Grievance Redressal Officer of the respondent and thereafter to the Ombudsman in appeal against that order. As the Ld. District Forum has no machinery to decide whether the meter is defective or not and further when the respondent in the prayer clause of the petition of complaint did not seek any inspection, the Ld. District Forum should have dismissed the complaint.
None appears for the Respondent/Complainant when the record was called on for hearing. Under compulsion, the appeal was heard on merit in absence of the respondent.
The overwhelming materials on record make it quite clear that the respondent is a resident of village – Oswail, P. S. – Balurghat, Dist – Dakshin Dinajpur and he is a consumer under WBSEDCL bearing Consumer Id. No.433014112 and he used to use the said STW connection for his cultivation for agricultural purposes.
Evidently, it is a billing dispute. It is now well settled that in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (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 aggrieved consumer makes a provisional payment, as aforesaid, no penal measure including disconnection 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 Ld. District Forum in the operative part of the order has held that the six disputed bills are bogus, concocted, whimsical, illegitimate and by issuing those bills, the OPs have certainly committed deficiency in service. The question of invoking jurisdiction by Regional Grievance Redressal Officer (RGRO) or Central Grievance Redressal Officer (CGRO) would have arisen had there been any complaint to that effect by the respondent.
In case of grievances against the billing dispute, the complainant may under protest pay the lesser amount out of the following two options – (i) an amount equal to the sum claimed from him/her in the disputed bill or (ii) an amount equal to the electricity charges due from him/her for each month calculated on the basis of average charge for electricity paid by him during the preceding six months. The respondent/complainant did not state that he has lodged any complaint to that effect or he has made any complaint for inspection of the meter. The respondent has simply claimed for a declaration that those six bills are illegal, concocted and baseless. In this regard, it would be pertinent to record that Regulation 3.6.1 of Notification No.55/WBERC dated 07.08.2013 which reproduces below –
“3.6.1 – If, on inspection by the distribution licensee on its own or on the basis of a complaint of a consumer, the meter of a consumer is found defective or defunct for a reason other than theft of electricity as provided in Section 135 of the Act and no theft of energy can be reasonably suspected, the consumer shall pay provisionally, for such consumption of electricity for the period during which the meter has been suspected to have been defective or defunct, on the basis of average consumption and other parameters for the preceding and/or succeeding three months or during any previous and/or subsequent period that may be reasonably comparable before the meter has been found to be defective or defunct. If, however, the period during which the meter has been defective or defunct cannot be ascertained, such period shall be limited to a period of three months immediately preceding the date of inspection”.
Admittedly, the Respondent did not pay the amount of bill issued by the licensing authority. On the contrary, he has prayed for a declaration in a Forum constituted under the Act like a suit within the meaning of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 without approaching the RGRO or CGRO about inspection of the meter to ascertain its correctness. There is no machinery before a Forum constituted under the Act to ascertain as to whether the meter in question was defective or not. Therefore, without inspection of the same, then the Ld. District Forum has no scope to declare a bill illegal or baseless. The respondent/complainant did not make any prayer for inspection of the meter through any expert to ascertain its correctness.
The Regulation Nos. 3.5.1 or 3.6.1 of Notification No.55/WBERC dated 07.08.2013 was made in exercise of the power conferred by Section 181(1)(2)(x) read with Section 50 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and as such it has statutory force and it is well settled that a Court of law should not interfere with the codified legislation.
After giving anxious consideration to the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the Ld. District Forum had proceeded in a wrong way to decide the complaint without asking the respondent/complainant to approach the appropriate authority in accordance with Notification No. 55/WBERC dated 07.08.2013. In other words, when the Regulation has a statutory force, the respondent/complainant had/has ample opportunity to avail the procedure prescribed therein. Therefore, when the Ld. District Forum passed the order without appreciating the actual proposition of law, I am constrained to interfere with the order impugned.
For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is allowed. Considering the facts and circumstances, the parties do bear their respective costs.
The Final Order/Judgement dated 20.09.2017 passed by the Ld. District Forum in CC/21/2017 is hereby set aside.
The Respondent/Complainant shall have liberty to approach the appropriate Forum in accordance with Notification No. 55/WBERC dated 07.08.2013.
The Registrar of this Commission is directed to send a copy of this order to the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dakshin Dinajpur at Balurghat for information.
