Tripura

StateCommission

A/23/2017

The Chairman Cum Managing Directoe, Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Smti. Ranjita Debbarma - Opp.Party(s)

Miss. R. Purkayasta

14 Jul 2017

ORDER

Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala.

 

 

Case No.A.23.2017

 

1. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
   Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited,
   Bidyut Bhavan, Bodhjung Chowmuhani,
   Agartala, West Tripura.

 

2. The General Manager,
   Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited,
   Bidyut Bhavan, Bodhjung Chowmuhani,
   Agartala, West Tripura.

 

3. The Deputy General Manager,

Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited,
Bidyut Bhavan, Bodhjung Chowmuhani,
Agartala, West Tripura.

 

4. The Senior Manager,
   Electrical Sub-Division No.III,
   Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd.,
   Durga Chowmuhani, P.O. Ramnagar,
   Agartala, West Tripura.        

… … … … … Appellant/Opposite Parties.

•  

1. Smt. Ranjita Debbarma,
   Proprietor of Tandoor Hut,
   Bijoy Kumar Chowmuhani,
   Charu Kuthir, P.O. Agartala,
   P.S. West Agartala,
   Agartala, West Tripura.

… … … … … Respondent/Complainant.

 

Present

Mr. Justice U.B. Saha,

President,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

Mrs. Sobhana Datta,

Member,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

Mr. Narayan Ch. Sharma,

Member,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

For the Appellants:                                    Miss Rajashree Purkayastha, Adv.

For the Respondent:                                  Mr. Anjan Kanti Pal, Adv.

Date of Hearing & Delivery of Judgment: 14.07.2017.

J U D G M E N T [O R A L]

 

U.B. Saha,J,

The instant appeal is filed by the appellants, namely, the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited, the General Manager, Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited, the Deputy General Manager, Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited and the Senior Manager, Electrical Sub-Division No.III of Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as opposite party no.2 to 5/TSECL) under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the judgment dated 20.01.2017 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as District Forum), West Tripura, Agartala in case No. C.C. 68 of 2016 whereby and whereunder the Ld. District Forum disposed of the complaint case directing the opposite parties to receive 50% of the consumed bill  of the petitioner from April, 2016 onwards and also to deduct the fixed charge and surcharge from the bill and thereafter prepare fresh bill for the period after April, 2016 onwards. Complainant is to pay the consumed bill up to April 2016, clear it immediately and also pay 50% of the claimed amount in this time. Opposite parties is also directed to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation for deficiency of service and Rs.1000/- as cost of litigation.  

2. Heard Miss Rajashree Purkayastha, Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellants (opposite party no.2 to 5) as well as Mr. Anjan Kanti Pal, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, Smt. Ranjita Debbarma (hereinafter referred to as complainant).
3. Brief facts needed to be discussed are as follows:-

The complainant, Smt. Ranjita Debbarma had taken power connection in her restaurant, namely, Tandoor Hut at Bijoy Kumar Chowmuhani, Agartala. After few months of taking power connection, she noticed that excess and high bill for consumption of electricity was given by the opposite party no.5, Senior Manager, Electrical Sub-Division No.III, Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd., Durga Chowmuhani, Agartala. The bill for the month of January, 2016 was Rs.3,531/-, for February, 2016 was Rs.3,178/- and for March, 2016, it was Rs.4,851/-. But again for the month of March and April, 2016, the power bill comes to Rs.12,699/- and thereafter, it was Rs.13,372/- for the month of June-July. Complainant submitted an application on 30.04.2016 to the opposite party no.5, Senior Manager, Electrical Sub-Division No.III, TSECL for replacing the meter-reading box as the same was not functioning properly and also for taking necessary step to check-up the excessive bill raised by the Electricity Corporation. Also verbally requested to opposite party no.5, Senior Manager, Electrical Sub-Division No.III, Durga Chowmuhani for changing the meter again and again, but no step was taken in this regard. On 16.07.2016, she has received a bill amounting to Rs.49,861/- with arrear bill of Rs.35,778/-. As she was unable to pay such huge amount for inaction of opposite parties, she had filed an application under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act before the District Forum for compensation amounting to Rs.3 lacs and for change of meter.

4. Opposite parties, Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd. appeared through their Ld. Counsel Mr. Pradip Chakraborty and filed written statement by one Sri Pradip Kar, Senior Manager, Electrical Sub-Division No.III, TSECL, Durga Chowmuhani, Agartala supported by an affidavit wherein the opposite parties denied the claim of the complainant, though they have admitted that the complainant lodged complaint before the opposite party no.5 regarding the excessive bill and also prayed for changing of meter. It is also stated that no excessive billing was done. The application for replacement of meter was given in the month of April 2016 and after that, no payment was made in respect of electricity bill consumption. It is further stated that the complaint is not maintainable in its present form. She is to make payment of the bill at first.   
5. Complainant produced some bills, original complaint petition and money receipt.
6. Opposite parties produced photocopy of letter dated 17.05.2016, 01.06.2016, 04.09.2016 and the bill dated 17.10.2016.
7. The Ld. District Forum hearing the parties and considering the evidence on record passed the impugned judgment as stated (supra).
8.  Miss Purkayastha, Ld. Counsel submits that the complainant has running a restaurant namely, Tandoor Hut and alleged regarding the bills raised from the month of April 2016 onwards i.e. the summer season. Consumption of electricity may vary time to time i.e. in winter season and summer season. In summer season, the complainant had used the air conditioners. She further submits that the alleged excessive bill was checked-up by the concerned authority and found that there was no wrong in the bill. She has also contended that as the complainant did not pay any amount since March, 2016, at present, she is liable to pay an amount of Rs.1,67,938/- including the arears. She has finally contended that the Ld. District Forum has passed the impugned judgment on mere presumption and without deciding that fact whether the meter was defective or not.
9. Mr. Pal, Ld. Counsel appearing with the complainant submits that the complainant again and again approached the opposite party no.5 regarding the excessive billing and also for changing of meter, but the opposite parties without deciding fact as to whether the meter installed in her shop is a defective one or not raised the excessive bill again and again. Thus, according to him, it will be proper to direct the opposite parties for placing the meter in question to the Electrical Inspector for deciding as to whether the electric meter installed in her shop is a defective one or not. He has also submitted that the complainant went to the Office of the opposite party no.5 after passing of the impugned judgment for making payment of the consumed bill as directed by the Ld. District Forum, but the opposite parties refused to accept the same.  
10. We have gone through the evidence on record as well as the submission made by Miss Purkayastha that the complaints of an individual consumer like the complainant are outside the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum as separate Forum for redressal of individual consumers grievance has been created under Section 42 of the Electricity Act, 2003. From the evidence, it appears that admittedly, the disputes are regarding the meter reading and excessive bill, but the alleged defective meter was never placed to the Electrical Inspector for adjudication of the disputes, rather the opposite parties took a unilateral decision that the meter is properly functioning and on the basis of the report of their employees without referring the dispute to the Electrical Inspector as per provisions of law they have raised the bill.
11. Neither the Consumer Forum nor this Commission has any expertisation to decide as to whether an electrical meter is a defective one or not. Only by an expert, the meter can be examined, as admittedly the meter of the complainant was not examined by the Electrical Inspector i.e. an expert. More so, a consumer like the complainant cannot be allowed to consumption the electric power without any payment for long time. From the submission of the Ld. Counsel of the appellants and on the perusal of the recent bill relating to the complainant placed before us, it appears that the complainant supposed to pay  Rs.1,67,938/-. However, as the complainant herself agreed to pay Rs.1 lac within two months, according to us, it would be proper to allow her the said time.
12. In view of the above, when this Commission proposed for directing the opposite parties for referring the disputes to the Electrical Inspector regarding the fact as to whether the meter installed in the shop of the complainant is correct or faulty as alleged by the complainant, then Ld. Counsel appearing for both the parties agreed to the proposal of this Commission that the appeal can be disposed of directing the opposite parties to decide the issue regarding the allegation of defect of meter to the Electrical Inspector and the parties will be bound by the decision of the Electrical Inspector and meanwhile, the complainant will deposit Rs.1 lac and the opposite parties will be at liberty to raise the proper bill on the basis of the report of the Electrical Inspector for the period of April, 2016 to till date and the complainant will also be bound by the report of the Electrical Inspector.
13. In view of the above submission of the Ld. Counsel of the parties, the appeal is disposed of with a direction to the complainant to pay an amount of Rs.1 lac within a period of two months from today as she did not pay any amount in terms of the impugned judgment and the opposite parties, the Senior Manager, Electrical Sub-Division No.III i.e. the opposite party no.5 to place the alleged defective meter of the complainant to the Electrical Inspector after deposit of Rs.1 lac i.e. within a period of two months from today and the Electrical Inspector having jurisdiction shall decide the disputes regarding the alleged defective meter in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date of reference. If the meter installed in the shop of the complainant is necessary to change for the purpose of deciding the issue by the Electrical Inspector, then the opposite parties shall install another meter provisionally so that the supply of electric power to the complainant’s shop is not hampered in anyway. After the decision of the Electrical Inspector regarding the meter in dispute, the opposite parties will be at liberty to raise the bill on the basis of the report of the Electrical Inspector for the period from April, 2016 to till date and if it is found by the Electrical Inspector that the appellants raised bill (s) higher than the actual bill, then the excess payment shall be adjusted with future bill (s).

With the above observation and direction, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned judgment passed by the Ld. District Forum is modified to the extent as indicated above.

Office is directed to refund the amount deposited by the appellant-opposite parties as statutory deposit with this Commission. 

Send down the records to the Ld. District Forum, West Tripura, Agartala.

 

 

 

 

MEMBER State Commission Tripura

MEMBER State Commission Tripura

PRESIDENT State Commission Tripura