Date of Filing – 06.11.2015
Date of Hearing – 17.05.2017
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 Party to impeach the Judgement/Final Order dated 14.10.2015 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Siliguri (for short, Ld. District Forum) in Consumer Complaint no. 150/2014. By the impugned order, the Ld. District Forum allowed the complaint lodged by the Respondent Smt. Sati Rani Ray under Section 12 of the Act with direction upon the opposite party/appellant to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- besides a direction restore the electricity connection to the complainant/respondent within 30 days.
The Respondent herein being Complainant lodged the complaint asserting that being a resident of Roy Para, Naxalbari, District – Darjeeling she has an electric connection under West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (WBSEDCL) being Consumer Id. No.412000889 and she has been enjoying the said service connection uninterruptedly till 25.08.2014. The Complainant has stated that the consumption units for three months of the connection was never exceeded 199 units excepting in one occasion i.e. on billing date 07.08.2012, consumption for the period of May, 2012 to July, 2012 when consumption showed 720 units. The said matter was duly reported to the Station Manager, Naxalbari CCC through a letter dated 25.08.2012. The complainant alleged that for consumption period of August, 2013 to October, 2013, consumption units have shown 1312 units and in this regard, the complainant raised objection by two letters on 18.11.2013 and 15.02.2014. The Complainant expressed her willingness to pay the bill subject to rectification and requested to change the faulty meter box. For the consumption period from November, 2013 to January, 2014, billing date 21.02.2014 showed the consumption of 590 units. The Complainant made several correspondences with the licensing authority and on 25.04.2014 met the Station Manager, Naxalbari CCC to ventilate her grievances with regard to the consumption of units raised in the bills. The Complainant alleged that without solving the billing dispute, all on a sudden on 25.08.2014 her electricity connection was disconnected. On the following date i.e. on 26.08.2014 she lodged a complaint with the Regional Grievances Redressal Officer but it yielded no result. Hence, the Respondent approached the Ld. District Forum with prayer for certain reliefs, viz. (a) to direct the opposite party to restore the electricity connection; (b) to pay compensation of Rs.9,50,000/- etc.
The Appellant being OP by filing a written version disputed the claim of the complainant stating that on 08.04.2014 the Complainant’s electric meter was inspected and it was found alright. The OP has stated that there was no fault in the meter. Despite defaulter notice dated 02.06.2014 the Complainant did not pay any amount and as such on 25.08.2014 service connection was disconnected.
After assessing the materials on record, the Ld. District Forum by the impugned judgement/final order allowed the complaint with certain directions upon the opposite party/WBSEDCL. Challenging the said order, the opposite party has come up in this Commission with the present appeal.
Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has submitted that the Respondent has defaulted in payment of electricity bills and as such she cannot maintain a consumer complaint yet the Ld. District Forum has passed an order in favour of the Respondent but the order is silent about payment of arrear electricity bill. He has further submitted that challenging the order of RGRO, an appeal should have been preferred before the Ombudsman as per provision of West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission but when without adhering to the provisions of WBERC, which has a statutory force, an order has been passed for reconnection of electricity, the impugned order should be set aside.
Per contra, Ld. Advocate for the Respondent supporting the decision of the Ld. District Forum has submitted that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2013) 8 SCC 491 (U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. – vs. – Anis Ahmad) a Consumer Forum has the authority to decide the billing dispute and when there is apparent inconsistency in the bills, the impugned order should not be interfered with.
I have considered the submission advanced by the Ld. Advocates appearing for the parties and perused through the materials on record.
Undisputedly, Respondent being a consumer under WBSEDCL/Appellant was enjoying electricity connection in her residence situated at Roy Para, Naxalbari, District-Darjeeling being Consumer Id. No.412000889. The dispute cropped up when a bill dated 07.11.2013 was generated by the Appellant Company for the period from August, 2013 to October, 2013 showing total consumption of 1312 units. In the regenerated bill dated 29.08.2014 the same number of unit i.e. unit 1312 has been shown. Another bill dated 21.02.2014 has been raised by the appellant company for the period from October, 2013 to January, 2014 showing consumption of 590 units. According to the Respondent, there are several inconsistency with regard to the bills.
In any case, the Respondent did not pay the amount of the electric bills generated by the Appellant Company for which the electric connection was disconnected on 25.08.2014.
It is well settled that in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. (supra) 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 12.09.2007 being notification No. 36, 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, if the consumer is aggrieved by the order of the Grievance Redressal Officer, in accordance with the provisions of the concerned Regulations. In such a case, the aggrieved consumer may, under protest, pay, -
- 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,
Whichever is less pending disposal of the dispute.
(b) The amount so calculated provisionally under clause(ii) by the licensee and tendered by the consumer shall be accepted by the licensee against that bill on the provisional basis”.
The Respondent herself admitted that she lodged a complaint with Regional Grievances Redressal Officer but did not take any pain to file the order passed by the said authority. The Respondent also did not mention why she did not prefer any appeal to Ombudsman against the order of RGRO. The Ld. District Forum also did not ask the Respondent to produce preceding six bills in conformity with the Regulation No.3.5.1 of WBERC being Notification No.36. In other words, in accordance with the Rules, the Respondent was under obligation either to pay the amount of disputed bill on protest or to make payment of an amount equal to the electricity charges paid by her during preceding six months. The Ld. District Forum has passed the order without any observation as to the fate of outstanding bills. If a person has no faith upon the authority as provided in WBERC with regard to the genuiness of meter reading, he may file an application for appointment of an expert to ascertain the correctness of the said meter but electricity line cannot be restored unless payment is made in conformity with Regulation No.3.5.1 as noted above. We must not be obsessed with the fact that the licensing authority, who is providing electricity to the customers is a public authority and a public property cannot be allowed to drainage out without ascertaining the real cause.
Therefore, having heard the Ld. Advocates appearing for the parties and on going through the materials on record, I am of the view that the Ld. District Forum has not arrived at a correct finding on the basis of materials placed before and as such I am constrained to interfere with the order impugned.
In view of the above, the appeal is allowed on contest. However, there will be no order as to costs.
The impugned Judgement/Final Order is hereby set aside. The case is remitted back on remand with a direction upon the parties to appear before the Ld. District Forum on 04.07.2017. The Respondent/Complainant is directed to file an application for appointment of an expert from Electrical Department of Jalpaiguri Engineering College or any other reputed institution to ascertain the correctness of meter reading of the Respondent/Complainant and the cost in this regard must be borne by the Respondent/Complainant for the present which shall be decided finally by the Ld. District Forum subject to the result of such inspection.
With the above observations, the appeal stands disposed of.
The Registrar of this Commission is directed to send a copy of this order to the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Siliguri for information and guidance.
