Date of Filing – 30.10.2015
Date of Hearing – 24.08.2017
The challenge in this appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) is to the Final Order dated 18.08.2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Paschim Medinipur (in short, Ld. District Forum) in Consumer Complaint no. 25/2013. By the impugned order, the Ld. District Forum allowed the complaint lodged by the Respondent Sri Asit Kumar Mandal under Section 12 of the Act on contest against the Appellant with the direction upon the OPs/appellants to rectify the dispute bill and to issue a fresh bill, as average consumption of previous meter reading of six months or one year and to pay litigation cost of Rs.3,000/-.
The Respondent herein being Complainant lodged the complaint before the Ld. District Forum asserting that he is a consumer of West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (WBSEDCL) being Consumer No.K019837. The complainant submits that the service of the OPs was not satisfactory from the beginning and the OP No.1 issued bills to him without taking meter reading and there was no outstanding dues. However, on 09.07.2012 all on a sudden, one bill dated 07.07.2012 for the month of May, 2012 to July, 2012 has been generated showing a claim of Rs.62,737/-. In this regard, all the requests of the complainant to rectify the bill and to issue a fresh bill as per consumption turned a deaf ear. Hence, the respondent lodged the complaint before the Ld. District Forum with prayer for several reliefs including a direction upon the OP No.1/appellant no.1 to rectify the bill dated 07.07.2012 and issue a fresh bill as per previous meter reading.
The appellants/WBSEDCL by filing a written version have stated that the complainant never used the service connection for domestic purpose and the premises described in the petition of complaint. The OPs have also stated that on 03.05.2012 the checking of the meter was done and it was found that complainant consumed 9583 units for which the bill was raised of Rs.62,737/-. The OPs have also stated that there was no defect in the meter reading.
After assessing the materials on record, the Ld. District Forum by the impugned order allowed the consumer complaint with the directions, as indicated above, which prompted the OPs to approach this Commission with the instant appeal.
I have perused the materials on record and considered the submission advanced by the Ld. Advocates appearing for the parties.
Undisputedly, Respondent being a consumer under WBSEDCL/Appellant was enjoying electricity connection in his residence situated at Village-Meudipur, P.O.+ P.S. -Jhargram, Dist- Paschim Medinipur being Service Connection No.K/2081/D and Consumer No.K019837 respectively. The dispute cropped up when a bill for the period from June, 2010 to April, 2012 showing consumption of 9583 units amounting to Rs.62,737/- was generated. According to the respondent, the said bill was much higher than the average consumption. Therefore, the instant complaint is essentially a billing dispute.
It is well settled that in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2013) 8 SCC 491(U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. – Vs. – Anis Ahmad) 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.
The materials on record indicate that challenging the authenticity of the disputed bill, the respondent did not approach Regional Grievance Redressal Officer (RGRO) as per Regulation No.3.5 of West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission published in Kolkata Gazette (extra-ordinary) dated 12.09.2007 being Notification No.36/WBERC. Needless to say, the said Regulation has a statutory force and as such the respondent had opportunity to approach the RGRO for ascertaining the authenticity of the dispute bill. In the said Regulation, there is an opportunity to prefer appeal before the Ombudsman, WBERC at Salt Lake City, Kolkata within 60 days from the order of the RGRO or the action taken thereof. In any case, the respondent/complainant did not approach the authorities as provided in the Regulation flows from the Electricity Act, 2003.
The non-filing of any application before RGRO obviously is not fatal. But when the respondent/complainant approached the Ld. District Forum with an allegation of billing dispute, in all fairness he should have filed an application for appointment of a technical expert to ascertain whether the bill generated by the WBSEDCL for the period from June, 2002 to April, 2012 amounting to Rs.62,737/- was correct or not. The officials of WBSEDCL are discharging their duties in official course of business and there is no allegation whatsoever by the respondent that the Station Manager, Manikpara CCC of WBSEDCL or any other employee has any hostile animus with him. In such a situation, when the appellant/licensing authority has unequivocally stated that there was no defect in the meter, a Consumer Forum has no mechanism to solve the dispute unless any report by an expert contrary to the report of Station Manager of Manikpara CCC is forthcoming.
The Ld. District Forum has observed that the contention of the WBSEDCL regarding table reading of the meter for the period from 2009 to 2011 on account of extremist activities is not acceptable as there is no such evidence to that effect. In order to prove the allegation of extremist movement in the year 2009 – 2011 in the Jhargram area, no such evidence is required and judicial notice may be taken to this fact. The Ld. District Forum has also given emphasis on account of failure on the part of opposite parties to prove unauthorised installation of submersible pump by the respondent. The failure on the part of the OP does not indicate that complainant has proved his case. It is the complainant who has brought the allegation and as such the burden of proof lies upon him and when despite opportunity, the complainant/respondent either did not approach the RGRO in accordance with Regulation 3.5 as noted above and further when did not pray for appointment of any expert before the Ld. District Forum, the Ld. District Forum had no reason to pass any order directing the opposite parties to rectify the dispute bill and to issue a fresh bill, as per average consumption of previous meter reading of six month or one year. Such a finding appears to me an erroneous one and as such the impugned order being not sustainable in the eye of law, 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 Final Order is hereby set aside.
Consequently, CC/25/2013 stands dismissed.
The Registrar of this Commission is directed to send a copy of this order to the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Paschim Medinipur for information.
