KUNDAN KUMAR KUMAI

This is an appeal preferred against the order and judgment passed on 18/03/2021 in CC No. 5/S/2018 by the Ld. D.C.D.R.F. Siliguri.

Brief facts of the appellant case is that, the respondent/complainant had a book stall near Budhhamandir, Gurungbasti, Pradhan Nagar, Siliguri for the last 15-17 years, in the name of Kalika Book and Stationery Stores, in which, electricity was supplied by the appellant  company, under consumer ID No. 412224200. She used to pay her electricity bills regularly, but on 03/01/2013, the appellant served a bill, which was 4/5 times higher than regular bills amounting to Rs. 5788/- (Five thousand seven hundred eighty-eight) only, and the units consumed had been shown has 703 units and the meter reading was 1333, while the previous reading was 630 units. She used to use 3 CFL bulbs of 15 watts each and a ceiling fan, regularly. The usual units consumed was in the range of 120-140 units for three months. But as the bill dated 03/01/2013 was unusually high, she made an application to the appellant on 07/01/2013, for correcting the excess bill, due to malfunctioning of the meter. But the appellant did not take any steps, and the respondent/complainant, was again served a bill of Rs. 6269/- (Six thousand two hundred sixty-nine) only, and the unit consumed was shown as 60 units for three months. She had further made several applications to the appellant, but the appellant did not pay any heed to her applications. On 11/12/2013, the respondent/complainant had been served with a bill for Zero units, despite using electricity. Finally, respondent/complainant made an application on 10/01/2018 and getting no response filed this case. Hence this case.

The appellant contested the case below by filing written version, wherein, they have submitted, that the case was barred by limitation, as the dispute for the billing period 29/08/2012 to 25/11/2012, had exceeded the prescribed period under Section 24 (A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. They have further mentioned, that the supply to the premises of the respondent/complainant was under commercial category and therefore, the connection had been withdrawn on 10/08/2013, and disconnected bill dated 11/12/2013, with Zero units had been generated. An application for the bill dated 13/01/2013, had been received from the respondent/complainant for excess unit of 703 and on inspection the meter was found to be working perfectly and the excess unit could have been due to internal wiring fault or accumulation of unit. Further on 19/07/2016, an application had been received regarding excess billing and to check the correctness of the meter, one check meter had been installed on 26/07/2016, being meter no. B3797553. On checking, the meter was found to be okay and the excess meter reading may have been due to equipment fault or insulation fault in the internal wiring. On 10/01/2018, a further application was received for excess bill and meter defect and on 15/01/2018 during visit for inspection, the premises was found to be locked. Hence prays for dismissal of the case.

On hearing both the sides, after recording the evidence, the Ld. DCDRF, Siliguri, passed the impugned judgment, where by, the appellant was directed to correct the disputed bill dated 03/01/2013 and furnish a corrected bill for 200 units within the period of 30 days, from the date of the order and the respondent/complainant should pay the bill within 15 days, the appellant were further directed to pay an amount  Rs. 15,000/- (Fifteen thousand) only towards suffering and harassment and Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) only towards litigation cost, within 45 days and failing which interest @10% would be attracted till the amount was realized.

Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellant filed the instant appeal on the ground, that the Ld. DCDRF, Siliguri, had erred in law and facts while passing the impugned order.

Decision with reason

Ld. Advocate for the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment on the ground, that as the bill in dispute, pertained to September 2012- October 2013, with the case being filed in the year of  2018, the same was barred by  limitation, as the prescribed period of two years had been exceeded. Moreover, the appellant had checked the meter and also cross-checked the same by putting another meter and finding no fault with the meter, the onus had shifted upon the respondent. That apart, the Ld. DCDRF, Siliguri had arrived at the figure of 200 units on approximation and not on evidence. He therefore, prays for setting aside the impugned order.

On the other hand, the Ld. Advocate for the respondent had submitted, that the respondent was a consumer within the meaning of consumer as defined under Section 2(d) Consumer Protection Act 1986, and has relied on the judgment passed in Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund Vs. Kartik Das( 1994 (4)  SCC 225). He has further argued, that the respondent inspite of filing petition on 17/01/2013, 23/04/2013,15/05/2013 and 19/07/2016, the appellant had installed the check meter on 26/07/2016, and therefore, the limitation had been waived, once the appellant acted on the prayer of the respondent and moreover, as the dispute was not solved, the limitation became a continuous one. He has relied on the judgment passed in Satish Kumar Pandey and Another Vs. M/S Unitech Ltd., by the Hon’ble NCDRC, in Consumer Complaint 427/2014 on 08/06/2015. He has further stated, that bill dated 03/01/2013, the meter reading was shown as 1333 units and thereafter, the meter reading was shown as 1393 units, which is for the bill dated 21/03/2013 , where the consumption was shown as 60 units, and thereafter, 46 unit consumption  for bill dated 10/09/2013 and Zero units for bill dated 11/12/2013. He thus argued, that, as to why the check meter had not been installed earlier and had been done after passage of three years. He thus prays, that the impugned judgment be upheld.

It is a fact, that the dispute arose from the bill dated 03/01/2013, and mathematically speaking, the case which was filed sometime in 2018, would have been barred in view of the provision of Section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. But it is also not disputed, that after the filing of the application on 19/07/2016, the appellant installed a check meter on 26/07/2016 and found the meter, lying in the shop of the respondent/complaint to be ‘ok’. Once this response by the appellant had taken place, a fresh cause of action had arisen, thereby making the case legal and valid and not barred by the provisions of Section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. Hence the contention of the Ld. Advocate for the appellant cannot be accepted on the ground, that the case was barred under the provision of Section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

Now with the regard to the dispute, that the consumption of unit had been inflated manifold times from the bills prior to the bill dated 03/01/2013 and thereafter, in this regard, it is also not disputed, that immediately on receipt of the application complaining such inflation of consumption units, the appellant had checked the meter and found the same to be ‘ok’ and on 26/07/2016 had installed a check meter and then also had found the meter of the respondent complainant to be ‘ok’. Simply because, the check meter had been installed after a passage of around three years does not support, that the meter of the respondent/complainant had been defective earlier. In such a scenario, once the appellant had checked the meter physically and rechecked the same by installing a check meter and concluding, that there was no defect with the meter of the respondent/complainant, there is not much the appellant can do to ascertain the increase in the consumption unit of the respondent/complainant in the bill dated 03/01/2013. Moreover, once the appellant discharges the burden, it cannot be penalized for something which was not within its control. Simply, it was a one-off inflation in the consumer units of electricity, there is no scope to entertain the grievance sympathetically, once the meter was found to be without defect, because such attitude would not only set a precedent and the appellant company would be flooded with such grievances and treating them sympathetically would result in a serious financial crunch. That apart, it is public money involved and cannot be dealt with in a whimsical manner. Moreover, the appellant company being a electricity distributing company to the consumers all over Bengal with the exception of the city  of Kolkata, entertaining such application for inflated consumption unit, without there being any mechanical defect in the electric meters, would cause hardship and financial loss  to the appellant company, resulting in the appellant company being unable to efficiently discharge its role, in the distribution of electricity to not only the existing consumer, but also to spread the distribution to far flung areas, specially rural ones, due to financial crunch. Under the circumstance, the appellant company   appears to have discharged its duties, to satisfy the respondent/complainant’s prayer for such inflation of the consumer units, in the bill dated 03/01/2013. Therefore, the appellant has been able to establish its case, against that of the respondent/complainant’s case.

As a result, the instant appeal succeeds.

It is therefore,

Ordered

That the instant appeal be and the same is allowed on contest, but without costs.

The impugned order here by stands set aside.

Copy of this order be sent to both the parties, free of cost.

Copy of this order be sent to the Ld. DCDRF, Siliguri for necessary information.