Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the Order dated 30-05-2014 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Darjeeling in C.C. No. 01/2014, OP thereof has preferred this Appeal.

Briefly stated, case of the Complainant is that the OP Electricity Board, without proper meter reading, sent exorbitant electricity bills to him during the period from December, 2012 to May, 2013.  Therefore, he submitted an application before the O.P. on 04-07-2013 for necessary verification and correction of the disputed bills.  However, the OP did not take any step to rectify the anomaly; hence, the case.

Case of the OP, on the other hand, is that, since its men found the door of the residence of the Complainant under lock and key during their visit, they could not take meter reading in respect of the said service connection.  Accordingly, bills were raised for the disputed period on the basis of average energy consumption.  Besides, the OP challenged the jurisdiction of Ld. District Forum to adjudicate billing related disputes. 

Point to be considered is whether the impugned order suffers from any sort of legal infirmity, or not.

Decision with reasons

Since the Appellant has primarily called in question the jurisdiction of Ld. District Forum to adjudicate billing related disputes in terms of the provisions laid down under the Electricity Act, 2003 and WBERC (Electricity Supply Code) Regulations, 2007, let us delve into this issue first.

According to the Appellant, in terms of the Electricity Act, all billing related disputes are to be decided by the R.G.R.O. first and thereafter, by the Ld. Ombudsman on appeal, if at all requires. Further, it being a special statute, the provisions of this Act have got overriding effect vis-à-vis other Acts in force.

Sec. 175 of the Electricity Act, 2003 stipulates that, “provisions of this Act are in addition to and not in derogation of any other law for the time being in force“.  Accordingly, we find no force into the contention of the Appellant that this Act enjoys overriding effect over other Acts in vogue. 

Coming to the issue of referring all billing related disputes mandatorily to  R.G.R.O., we are inclined to rely upon the observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. vs. Anis Ahmed, reported in  (2013) 8 SCC 491, wherein the Hon’ble Court has been pleased to laid down the thumb rule stating inter alia as under:

“47(i) In case of inconsistency between the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the provisions of Consumer Protection Act will prevail, but ipso facto it will not vest the Consumer Forum with the power to redress any dispute with regard to the matters which do not come within the meaning of “service” as defined under Section 2(1)(o) or “complaint” as defined under Section 2(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

(ii) A “complaint” against the assessment made by assessing officer under Section 126 or against the offences committed under Sections 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is not maintainable before a Consumer Forum.

(iii) 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” under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or the Central Government or the State Government or association of consumers 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”.

Sec. 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 runs as under:

“Section 126: (Assessment): (1) If on an inspection of any place or premises or after inspection of the equipments, gadgets, machines, devices found connected or used, or after inspection of records maintained by any person, the assessing officer comes to the conclusion that such person is indulging in unauthorized use of electricity, he shall provisionally assess to the best of his judgement the electricity charges payable by such person or by any other person benefited by such use”.

A bare eye view of aforesaid Section is suffice to hold that the present dispute does not fall under Section 126 of the 2003 Act.  Also, it is nobody’s case that the Respondent has breached provisions of Sec. 135 to 140 of the 2003 Act. That being so, we do not see eye to eye with contention of the Appellant that only R.G.R.O. is the competent authority to adjudicate the present dispute.   Consequently, we find no infirmity with the case being adjudicated by the Ld. District Forum.

As for the present dispute, we find that the Ld. District Forum has minced no words in finding faults with the disputed bills.  There can be no two opinions as to the fact that when exorbitant bills are sent by utility service providers being totally unmindful of the predicaments/constrains of a hapless consumer to clear the claimed amount under duress, lest service connection gets snapped, it indeed becomes a tough ask for one to cope with the situation.  Quite naturally, this is bound to put one under great mental pressure/strain. As a consumer, one probably deserves due compassion/ empathy from the utility service provider. 

Thus by adjudicating the case in favour of the Respondent, to our mind, the Ld. District Forum committed no legal infirmity.  However, keeping in mind the fact that the present dispute arises over Respondent’s inability to give free access to the meter reader deputed by the Appellant to carry out due inspection of the energy meter for months together, awarding a sum of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and litigation cost, respectively, appears to be too harsh.  Accordingly, we are inclined reduce the same to make it just and fair.

Appeal, thus, succeeds in part.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

That FA/857/2014 be and the same is allowed on contest in part.  The impugned order is modified to the extent that the Appellant shall pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- as compensation and another sum of Rs. 1,000/- as litigation cost. The Appellant shall comply with the order within 45 days hence.