Date of Filing – 18.08.2017
Date of Hearing – 26.03.2018
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 15.06.2017 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dakshin Dinajpur at Balurghat (for short, Ld. District Forum) in Consumer Complaint No. 4/2017. By the impugned order, the Ld. District Forum allowed the complaint lodged by the Respondent Under Section 12 of the Act with the direction upon the OPs/Appellants not to give any effect to the disputed electricity bill dated 14.12.2016 and to issue a fresh bill for the dispute period taking 910 units as average consumption units for that period strictly in accordance with the regulations within 15 days from the date of order without charging any cost or fine or LPSC and litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- etc.
The Respondent herein being Complainant lodged the complaint before the Ld. District Forum asserting that she being a resident of Beltala Park, P.S –Balurghat, Dist – Dakshin Dinajpur is a consumer of West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (WBSEDCL) having consumer ID No. – 400230703 and has been paying charges of electricity according to meter reading regularly. However, on 14.12.2016 a bill was raised for the period from 28.08.2016 to 03.12.2016 showing as 8626 units, which according to the complainant is absolutely arbitrary, imaginary and against the actual consumption. The complainant has stated that on several occasions she went to the office of the opposite parties to consider the matter in the light of previous bills but it turned a deaf ear. Hence, the respondent approached the Ld. District Forum with prayer for a direction upon the opposite parties/appellants to issue a fresh bill in respect of the bills dated 14.12.2016, to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- and cost of litigation.
The Appellants being Opposite Parties by filing a written version have stated that the bill was prepared as per Regulation of the Electricity Board and there was no deficiency in services on the part of them.
After assessing the materials on record, the Ld. District Forum by the impugned Judgement/Final Order allowed the complaint with certain directions upon the OPs as indicated above. To assail the said order, the OPs have come up in this Commission with the present appeal.
Mr. Srijan Nayak, Ld. Advocate for the appellants has submitted that when there was every opportunity on the part of respondent to approach before CGRO/RGRO in accordance with the Regulation No.55 of WBERC, the appellants should have approached the said authority and when there is no machinery before a Forum constituted under the Act in determining the billing dispute the Ld. District Forum should have restrained itself from passing the order impugned.
Per contra, Ld. Advocate for the Respondent has contended that considering the previous bills and further when the meter was not functioning properly, the Ld. District Forum was quite justified in passing the order impugned which should not be interfered with.
I have given due consideration to the submission advanced by the Ld. Advocates appearing for the parties.
Having heard the Ld. Advocates appearing for the parties and on having a look to the materials on record, it would reveal that the Respondent being a consumer having consumer ID No. 400230703 was enjoying electricity at her premises lying and situated at P.O.- Beltala Park, P.S –Balurghat, Dist – Dakshin Dinajpur. It is also not in dispute that the respondent had been paying the bills for her consumption regularly as per bills sent by the Department from time to time in respect of the said electric connection.
However, the entire dispute was started when on 14.12.2016 a bill showing 8626 units for the consumption period between 28.08.2016 and 03.12.2016 has been raised. It may so happen that the respondent has approached the office of WBSEDCL for rectification of the bill but it is equally true that in respect of the instant billing dispute, the respondent has not ever made any approach the Regional Grievances Redressal Officer (RGRO) in accordance with Regulation 3.5.1 of Notification No.55/WBERC dated 07.08.2013.
Apparently, it was a billing dispute. It is now well settled that in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported (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 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 expert in electrical engineering from a competent authority like – IIT, Kharagpur or BESU, Shibpur or any expert from any Government Engineering College includudng Jalpaiguri Govt. Engineering College, 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 whether the meter in question was defective or not. The Appellant in their Petition of Complaint did not make any prayer for inspection of meter 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, the Ld. District Forum has committed a serious error in adjudicating the dispute and has drawn conclusion without any reason or basis of such conclusion. The impugned order is, therefore, being not sustainable in the eye of law is liable to be set aside.
For the reasons aforesaid, 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 Respondent/Complainant may approach the RGRO as mentioned above and if any such application is filed, the RGRO is requested to dispose of the same within two months from the date of filing of such complaint.
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.
