Date of Filing – 11.07.2016
Date of Hearing – 30.06.2017
The challenge in this appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) is to the Judgement/Final Order dated 06.05.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South 24 Parganas at Alipore (in short, Ld. District Forum) in Consumer Complaint no. 572/2014. By its order, the Ld. District Forum allowed the complaint lodged by the Respondent Sri Niharendu Purkait under Section 12 of the Act on contest against the Appellants with certain directions like- (a) to direct the Respondent to pay Rs.2,152/- for consumption of electricity for the month of August-September, 2014 and the Appellants to receive the same; (b) the Appellants not to raise any bill till October, 2014 and not to disconnect the electric connection of the Respondent.
The Respondent herein being Complainant lodged the complaint asserting that he is a consumer of WBSEDCL under Magrahat Unit being Consumer Id. No.113195532 and going on paying electric bills regularly. The complainant, however, received one computer generated notice for payment of outstanding bill amount of Rs.24,882/- for the period from August, 2014 and September, 2014 and Rs.1,076/- for the period of October, 2014 and payment date in that notice was mentioned by 27.11.2014. Hence, the respondent approached the Ld. District Forum against the appellants on the allegation of deficiency in services on the part of them.
The appellants being opposite party nos.1 & 2 by filing a written version have stated that a bill was raised of Rs.24,772/- (total bill – Rs.20,924/- + delay charge of Rs.3,848/- for the month of 02/2013 to 04/2014). The opposite parties have also stated that on the prayer of the complainant, the total amount of the bill of Rs.24,772/- had been divided into nine instalments and the complainant has also paid the first instalment and as such the instant complaint should be dismissed.
After assessing the materials on record, the Ld. District Forum by the impugned order allowed the consumer complaint with certain directions, as indicated above, which prompted the OPs to approach this Commission with the instant appeal.
Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants has submitted that the instant dispute being a billing dispute and further when the prayer of the respondent/complainant the arrear bill for the month of 02/2013 to 04/2014 was allowed and an opportunity was given to make payment of the outstanding amount of Rs.24,772/- by way of nine instalments and the respondent in compliance with the said instalments bill, has already paid first instalment, the Ld. District Forum should have dismissed the complaint. Ld. Advocate for the appellants has placed before me a copy of letter dated 19.05.2014 given by the respondent to the Assistant Engineer of WBSEDCL, Magrahat CCC which speaks that the respondent had agreed to make payment of the amount of the bill excepting interest thereon.
Despite receipt of notice, none appears for the respondent and as such the appeal was heard in absence of the respondent.
It is well settled that in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court 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.
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 lodge 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 Ld. District Forum did not consider the relevant Regulation which has statutory force in the eye of law. Moreover, when the respondent/complainant himself admitted that he is ready and willing to make payment of outstanding bill of Rs.24,772/- by way of instalments, it indicates that the respondent/complainant has consumed the electricity to that extent for which such a bill was raised. Moreover, there is no evidence that the respondent/complainant has ever prayed for appointment of any technical person to ascertain whether the bill raised by the WBSEDCL as per yellow card reading record was correct or not.
Considering all the above, I have no hesitation to hold that the Ld. District Forum was totally misdirected itself in passing the order impugned. Therefore, when the impugned order being not tenable in the eye of law, it is liable to be set aside.
Consequently, the appeal is allowed on contest. However, there will be no order as to costs.
The Judgement/Final Order passed by the Ld. District Forum dated 06.05.2016 in CC/572/2014 is hereby set aside.
Resultantly, the CC/572/2014 stands dismissed.
The Registrar of this Commission is directed to send a copy of this order to the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South 24 Parganas at Alipore (now at Baruipur) for information.
