Date of Filing – 24.05.2017
Date of Hearing – 11.01.2018
The instant appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) is at the behest of the Opposite Parties to impeach the Judgement/Final Order dated 12.04.2017 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Darjeeling (for short, Ld. District Forum) in Consumer Complaint No. 14/D/2016. By the impugned order, the Ld. District Forum allowed the complaint lodged by the Respondent Smt. Indira Sharma under Section 12 of the Act with the direction upon the Opposite Parties/Appellants to send revised bills for the consumption of 5813.05 units at the them prevailing rate from 2012 to 2014 with further direction to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/-, litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- and travelling allowance of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant.
The Respondent herein being Complainant lodged the complaint before the Ld. District Forum asserting that she being a resident of below Bhutan House, 9th Mile, Kalimpong is a bonafide consumer under West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (WBSEDCL)
having consumer ID No. – 412169698 and has been paying charges of electricity according to meter reading regularly. The average of consumption of electricity by the complainant comes between Rs.569.64P for the month of June to August, 2014, Rs.624/- for the period between September and November, 2014. However, on 21.03.2015 the complainant received a bill of Rs.2,79,576/- pertaining to the month of March to May, 2015. The issuance of such a huge amount of bill shocked the complainant and she approached the Station Manager, CCC, Kalimpong for verification of the bill and after verification, it was stated that the meter was not excessive and as the amount was accumulated for the past such a bill has been raised. Therefore, on the allegation of deficiency in services, the respondent approached the Ld. District Forum with prayer for a direction upon the appellants/opposite parties for a revised bill, compensation of Rs.20,000/- etc.
The Appellants being O.Ps. by filing a written version disputed the claim and it has been stated that a test meter was installed at the premises of the complainant and upon test, it was found that the existing meter was working fine. The OPs have also stated that the complainant was given option to deposit the accumulated bills in 60 instalments period with zero late payment surcharge to facilitate her to pay the bills easily.
After assessing the materials on record, the Ld. District Forum by the impugned Judgement/Final Order allowed the complaint with the directions as mentioned above. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said Judgement/Final Order, the OPs have come up in this Commission with the present appeal.
Having heard the Ld. Advocates appearing for the parties and on having a look to the materials on record, it would reveal that the Appellant being a consumer having consumer ID No. 412169698 was enjoying electricity at her premises lying and situated at a resident of below Bhutan House, 9th Mile, Kalimpong, Dist- Darjeeling.
The materials on record indicate that apparently, it was a billing dispute in respect of bill for the month of March, April & May, 2015 where a bill of Rs.2,79,576/- has been raised on 21.03.2015. For such huge bill, respondent approached the Station Manager, Kalimpong CCC/Appellant No.3 but it was reported that there was no defect in the meter and the bill has been raised due to accumulation of previous arrears of bills and in this regard, opportunity was given to the respondent to make payment of the same by way of 60 instalments with zero late payment surcharge.
In any case, the respondent did not approach the Grievance Redressal Officer or Central Grievance Redressal Officer as per Regulation 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 agreed 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 most important aspect of the matter is that the Appellant did not take any pain to file any application for appointment of an electrical engineer from any reputed Engineering College including Govt. Engineering College, Jalpaiguri to prove that the alleged bill was excessive and wrongly recorded. There is no machinery before a Forum constituted under the Act to ascertain as to correctness of bill in question. The Respondent in her Petition of Complaint did not make any prayer for inspection of meter through any expert to ascertain its correctness. The Appellant in order to prove the alleged deficiency on the part of the WBSEDCL could have made a prayer for appointment of an expert to determine the correctness of the meter in question.
Therefore, despite opportunity when the Respondent without trying to prove that the alleged reading of bill for the month of March to May, 2015 did not approach the right Forum, question of alleged deficiency on the part of Respondent does not arise.
Consequently, when it is found that there was no deficiency on the part of the Appellants/WBSEDCL, the Ld. District Forum should not have allowed the complaint without ascertaining as to whether there was any defect in meter reading or not, more particularly, when the respondent/complainant was given opportunity to pay the amount in 60 instalments with zero late payment surcharge.
Considering the above, the appeal is allowed on contest. There will be no order as to costs.
The impugned judgement / final order is hereby set aside.
The CC No.14/D/2016 stands dismissed. It is made clear that the Respondent/Complainant approach the R.G.O., the same should be disposed of within 90 days from the date of appearance of OP.
The Registrar of the Commission is directed to send a copy of this order to the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Darjeeling for information.
