Date of Filing – 20.03.2017

Date of Hearing – 28.07.2017

            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 Order No.17 dated 23.02.2017 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalpaiguri (for short, Ld. District Forum) in Consumer Complaint no. 18/2016.  By the impugned order, the Ld. District Forum allowed the complaint lodged by the Respondent under Section 12 of the Act with the directions upon the Appellant – (a) to adjust the bill amount of Rs.510/-; (b) to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- within one month from the date of the order, otherwise, the said amount shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of the case i.e. from 16.05.2016 till its realisation.

          The Respondent herein Sri Soumitra Bhattacharjee being a resident of College Para, P.O.+ P.S.: Dhupguri, Dist- Jalpaiguri lodged the complaint before the Ld. District Forum asserting that he is a ‘consumer’ of West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (WBSEDCL) Dhupguri being Consumer Id. No.422095678.  The said electricity line was disconnected for non-payment of the electricity bill for the period between November, 2013 and January, 2014.  The complainant went to the office of Distribution Licensee for reconnection and the outstanding amount of Rs.510/- and reconnection charge of Rs.100/- was paid.  However, the outstanding amount of Rs.510/- was wrongfully billed in the name of one Sri Pratap Roy of Dhupguri being Consumer No.422095675.  However, the reconnection bill amounting to Rs.100/- was correctly billed in the name of the complainant.  The complainant expressed his grievances over the matter and requested the OP to rectify the same but it yielded no result.  Thereafter, the complainant reported the matter to the Assistant Director, Consumer Affairs & Fair Business Practices, Jalpaiguri Regional Office, where the OP agreed to rectify the mistake but ultimately the OP did not keep the words.  Hence, the respondent approached the Ld. District Forum with prayer for several reliefs, viz.- (1) adjustment of the bill amount of Rs.510/-; (2) Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony and (3) litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.

          The Appellant being OP by filing written version has disputed the claim of the complainant.

       On evaluation of the materials on record, the Ld. District Forum by the impugned Order allowed the complaint with certain directions upon the OP as indicated above.  Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, the OP has come up in this Commission with the present appeal.

          Mr. Srijan Nayak, Ld. Advocate for the appellant has submitted that the WBSEDCL is a public sector undertaking of the Govt. of West Bengal and it runs by the tax payers money.  Considering the above, the Ld. District Forum should not have so much harsh in imposing compensation of Rs.50,000/- and as such the impugned order should be interfered with.

          Per contra, Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Ld. Advocate for the respondent has contended that when despite undertaking before the Assistant Director of Consumer Affairs & Fair Business Practices, Jalpaiguri.  The appellant did not adjust the amount of Rs.510/-, the Ld. District Forum was quite justified in passing the order impugned and the said order should not be disturbed.

          I have considered the rival contention of the parties and scrutinised the materials on record.

          Undisputedly, the respondent is a consumer of WBSEDCL being Consumer Id. No.422095678 and in his petition of complaint, the respondent has categorically mentioned that he availed the said electricity connection for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment.  Therefore, the respondent must be categorised as a ‘consumer’ as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Act.  It is also not in dispute that the respondent defaulted in payment of electricity bill within due time for the period between November, 2013 and January, 2014 amounting to Rs.510/-.  It is also evident that the respondent had been to the office of WBSEDCL at Dhupguri Customer Care Centre for payment of the outstanding amount and in the process he has paid Rs.510/- as outstanding amount and Rs.100/- for reconnection.  Unfortunately, though the reconnection charge of Rs.110/- was correctly billed in the name of respondent but the outstanding amount of Rs.510/- was billed wrongly in the name of one Sri Pratap Roy of Dhupguri being Consumer Id. No.422095675.

          The fact remains that in order to mitigate his problem, the respondent approached the appellant but the problem of the respondent was unattended.  Finding no other alternative, the respondent approached the Assistant Director, CA&FBP, Jalpaiguri and a Resolution was passed on 10.12.2015 on mediation.  The Resolution adopted in the mediation goes to show that the Station Manager, Dhupguri CCC regretted for delay in rectification of mistake and stated that rectification is at the disposal of Divisional Office of WBSEDCL.  The said Resolution bears the signature of the Station Manager, Dhupguri CCC.  Surprisingly enough, even after the said Resolution on 10.12.2015 no effective step was taken by the appellant, which prompted the respondent to lodge the complaint before the Ld. District Forum on 16.05.2016.

          The above factual matrix makes it quite clear that the appellant was deficient in rendering services to the respondent, who is a consumer of WBSEDCL.  In that perspective, the Ld. District Forum was quite justified in directing the opposite party/appellant to pay litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- and also to make necessary arrangement for adjustment of the bill amount of respondent/complainant of Rs.510/-.

          Now, the question comes up for consideration as to whether the Ld. District Forum was justified in imposing a compensation of Rs.50,000/- and that too upon the licensing authority i.e. WBSEDCL without fixing responsibility of the officer/staff concerned at whose fault the untoward incident has happened.

          To deal with the situation, it would be worthwhile to reproduce the provision of Section 14(1)(d) of the Act which runs as follows –

          “14. Finding of the District Forum. – (1) if, after the proceeding conducted under Section 13, the District Forum is satisfied that the goods complaint against suffer from any of the defects specified in the complaint or that any of the allegations contained in the complaint about the services are proved, it shall issue an order to the opposite party directing him to do one or more of the following things, namely :

...........

          (d) to pay such amount as may be awarded by it as compensation to the consumer for any loss or injury suffered by the consumer due to the negligence of the opposite party”.

          The sine qua non for entitlement of compensation is proof of loss or injury suffered by the consumer due to the negligence of the opposite party.  Once the said conditions are satisfied, the Consumer Forum would have to decide the quantum of compensation to which the consumer is entitled.  There cannot be any dispute that the computation of compensation has to be fair, reasonable and commensurate to the loss or injury.  There is a duty cast on the Consumer Forum to take into account all relevant factors for arriving at the compensation to be paid.

          Therefore, the assessment of compensation depend upon the facts and circumstances of the particular case.  In the instant case, there is no allegation that the appellant company did not restore the electricity connection of the respondent.  The record indicates that only a meagre amount of Rs.510/- was required to be adjusted by the appellant.  It is due to fault on the part of Billing Clerk or due to apathy on the part of Station Manager, Dhupguri CCC, there had been so much delay resulting to this litigation. 

          Needless to say, when a Court/Forum directs payment of compensation to the State or its undertaking, the ultimate sufferer is the common man.  It is the tax payers money which is paid for inaction of those who are entrusted under the Act to discharge the duties in accordance with law.  It is, therefore, necessary that when the Forum is satisfied that a complainant is entitled to compensation for harassment or mental agony of course should record carefully the materials and convincing circumstances and it should further direct the department concerned to pay the amount to the complainant from the public fund immediately but to recover the same from those who are found responsible for such unpardonable behaviour by dividing it proportionately where there are more than one functionaries. 

        In a decision reported in (1994) 1 CPR 569 (Lucknow Development Authority – Vs. – M.K. Gupta) the Hon’ble Apex Court directed that the authority to fix the responsibility of the officers who are responsible for causing harassment and agony to the respondent within a period of six months from a copy of this order is produced or served on it the Court further ordered that the amount of compensation of Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Commission for mental harassment shall be recovered for such officers proportionately from their salary.

      Considering the entire facts and circumstances and after giving thoughtful consideration to the submission advanced by the Ld. Advocates appearing for the parties, it appears to me that the loss suffered by the respondent in this case is not of that ilk which should be compensated by payment of Rs.50,000/-.  Considering the loss or injury suffered by the respondent, in my view, a compensation of Rs.10,000/- in the facts and circumstances would sub serve the object of justice. 

       In view of the above, the impugned order is modified only to the extent that the appellant/OP shall pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- instead of Rs.50,000/-.  The Divisional Manager, WBSEDCL, Jalpaiguri is directed to fix the responsibility of the officers/employees concerned and to recover the entire amount of Rs.15,510/- (the adjustable amount + cost of Rs.5,000/- imposed by the Ld. District Forum + compensation of Rs.10,000/- awarded by this Commission) from the officers/staff who are responsible for causing harassment and agony to the respondent/complainant from their salaries proportionately.  However, the above amount must be paid by the licensing authority/WBSEDCL to the respondent/complainant within 60 days from date otherwise, the amount shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. from date till its realisation.

       With the above observations and directions, the instant 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, Jalpaiguri for information.