Date: 22-04-2015

Sri Debasis Bhattacharya

This appeal is directed against the Order dated 16-07-2013 in C.C. No. 177/2012, passed by the Ld. District Forum, Howrah, whereby the instant case has been allowed on contest against the OP No. 1 with a direction to raise current bills by taking spot reading at the schedule premises and pay a compensation and litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 2,000/-, respectively.  Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, the OP Nos. 1 to 3 thereof have preferred this appeal.

In a short compass, case of the Complainant is that he is a consumer under the OP No. 1 being Consumer No. DO23545.  On 02-09-2011, he lodged a complaint with the OP No. 1 about his defunct meter and accordingly, the OPs replaced the said meter on 25-11-2011.  The OP No. 1 raised bills to the tune of Rs. 251/-, Rs. 199/-, and Rs. 809/- for the period from Oct.–Dec., 2011, Jan.–Mar., 2012 and Apr.–June, 2012, respectively.  Thereafter, he received two bills for a sum of Rs. 1,210/- and Rs. 580/-, which he paid on 10-07-2012 and 10-09-2012, respectively.  On scrutiny of the service connection bills, he found the same bear a different consumer number.  So, he verbally informed the matter to the OP No. 1 and they assured to adjust the amount in future bills.  Thereafter, he received a bill for an amount of Rs. 96/- for the period from Oct’12 to Dec. 12.  However, on going through the same, he found that an outstanding amount of Rs., 1,072/- was shown in his name.  So, a written complaint was lodged on 08-11-2012, but instead of taking any positive action,  they threatened to disconnect the meter unless such outstanding dues is cleared.  Hence, the case.

OP electricity authority contested the case by filing W.V., denying therein all the material allegations of the Complainant.  It is further stated by the OPs that upon receipt of an application from the Complainant on 08-11-2013 praying for rectification of bill, they immediately took step and inspected the meter.  On verification, it was observed that in the Complainant’s meter, a different consumer number was mentioned inadvertently.  The said consumer no., i.e., D02084 belongs to another consumer, namely, Sraban Kr. Das and both the consumers belong to the same zone, i.e., D02 and both the meters were replaced on 24-12-2011.  However, the meter reader, after inspection, generated a bill in respect of his consumption, but against the Consumer No. D02084 (Consumer No. of Sraban Kr. Das) instead of D02354.  Such mistake was absolutely unintentional, accidental and bona fide.  Accordingly, the Complainant paid Rs. 1,210/- and Rs. 580/- against receipt nos. 59755 and 66837, respectively in the account of Sraban Kr. Das.  The Complainant has the original receipts and bills against consumer no. D02084 and on his meter till now, consumer no. D02084 is written.  However, said Sraban Kr. Das did not claim anything nor did he lodge any complaint to the OPs. Still the OPs took steps for rectification of mistake and accordingly, they deleted the bill of Sraban Kr. Das against 362 units  (from unit 51 to 413) for the period from 07’12 to 09’12 and also adjusted Rs. 1,060/- against 217 units consumed (from 196 to 413) for the same period and also Rs. 730/- was adjusted from the current bill against 453 units (from 413 to 866).  The OPs did not pose any disconnection threat to the Complainant.  The instant case is misconceived and speculative and designed to harass a public utility concern in a Court of Law.

The moot point to be considered in this appeal is whether the impugned order suffers from any factual/legal infirmity, or not.

Decision with reasons

Ld. Advocate for the Appellants has submitted that they unequivocally admitted their mistake of wrong billing.  But, at the same time, it is also a fact that as soon as they came to know of the error from the Respondent, they immediately took steps to adjust the excess amount paid by the Respondent, which has also been appreciated by the Ld. District Forum.  Still the Ld. District Forum imposed heavy costs upon them which is otherwise an inadvertent and bona fide mistake.  The Ld. District Forum failed to appreciate that as per the present Electricity Act, 2003 and regulations thereunder, all billing disputes are to be referred to CGRO first for redressal of grievance and thereafter, in case of dissatisfaction by any of the parties, an appeal may be preferred before the Ld. Ombudsman for a decision.  The Ld. District Forum exceeded its jurisdiction by entertaining the instant complaint case though the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a decision reported in 2009 CTJ 1062 (SC) (CP) has held that when special remedy is available under the Act, Fora has nothing to do in the case of billing dispute. The Ld. District further failed to appreciate that the alleged inflated bill against 308 units dated 20-05-2013 was prepared on the basis of actual meter reading. Therefore, the instant appeal be set aside.      

Ld. Advocate for the Respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that it has been admitted by the Appellants that they committed error which itself is tantamount to deficiency in service and what is most intriguing, instead of being apologetic for such goof up, they have been continuously threatening to disconnect the service line. The impugned order is perfectly in order and hence, the same be upheld.

          First, we come to the maintainability issue raised by the Appellants.  On a careful perusal of the referred decision, we find that said case revolved over a disconnected telephone line over a billing dispute while the bone of contention of the present case originates over installation of meter of a different person to the suit premises of the Respondent. Moreover, the referred decision was arrived at by the Hon’ble Court after analyzing Sec. 7B of the Telegraph Act.  It is noteworthy that, subsequently, the DoT, vide its communiqué being No. 2-17/2013-Policy-I dated 24-01-2014 clarified that disputes between individual telecom consumers and telecom service provides can be adjudicated by Consumer Fora.  

          In this regard, it may not be out of place to mention the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.  5466  of 2012, between U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. V. Anis Ahmed, wherein the Hon’ble Court held that:-

(i) In case of inconsistency between the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the provisions of Consumer Protection Act will prevail, but ipso facto it will not vest the Consumer Forum with the power to redress any dispute with regard to the matters which do not come within the meaning of “service” as defined under Section 2(1)(o) or “complaint” as defined under Section 2(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

(ii) A “complaint” against the assessment made by assessing officer under Section 126 or against the offences committed under Sections 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is not maintainable before a Consumer Forum.

(iii) 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" under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or the Central Government or the State Government or association of consumers 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”.

A plain reading of the petition of complaint makes it abundantly clear that the instant dispute environs more over alleged deficiency in service on the part of the Appellants and consequent sufferings and mental agony of the Respondent due to mismatch in the consumer no. rather than a simple billing dispute. Moreover, though the Hon’ble Apex Court has kept disputes related to electricity theft outside the purview of Consumer Fora, there is as such no bar to deal with billing disputes particularly when such dispute is not against the assessment made by assessing officer under Section 126 or against the offences committed under Sections 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003. So, the objection of the Appellants regarding maintainability of the instant petition is not at all tenable.

It is always desirable that whenever an appeal is moved; it is done in a purposeful manner. Mere assertion/superfluous claim can go to a certain distance, but it is not suffice to corroborate such assertion/claim.  On going through the record, we find only a handful of documents, while important documents, viz., copy of rectified bill allegedly generated on 16-01-2013, receipt nos. 59755 and 66837 together with corresponding energy bills, reconciliation statement for the disputed period about actual energy consumed by the Respondent vis-à-vis payment made by him have not been placed on record.

Undisputedly, an application was made on 02-09-2011 by the Respondent for replacement of his alleged defective meter.  However, it was ultimately changed on 24-12-2011, after nearly four months since such application.  No explanation is given by the Appellants as to such delay.

It is alleged by the Appellants that the Respondent has not cleared outstanding dues to the tune of Rs. 3,352/- and even refused to accept energy bills sent to him from time to time.  However, no corroborative document is placed on record to support such allegation.  In any case, insofar as there is no scope to bring new/fresh facts at appeal stage, we are not inclined to dwell on such issues. 

To err may be human, but when such err is resurfaced unabated for months together, that is unacceptable. Whether incorrect bills were wittingly generated or otherwise, fact remains that because of such fault on the part of the Appellant, the misery of the Respondent became beggar description - not only that he had to pay excess amount for the fault of the Appellants, but resultant mental stress and agony thereof in chasing the matter with the officials of the Appellants is indeed unfortunate.  In fact, ultimately he had to take legal recourse to remedy the situation burning a hole in his pocket.  It appears that the Appellants have, till date, not corrected the consumer number as mentioned on the body of the meter and therefore, chances of recurrence of similar dispute always looms large.  It clearly spells out gross deficiency in service on the part of the Appellants.  Mere issuance of correct bill in favour of the Respondent for the time being or making necessary adjustments is not suffice.    Therefore, the Appellants must compensate the Respondent, but the compensatory award given by the Ld. District Forum in the prevailing facts and circumstances of the case appears to be too harsh and as such, the same deserves a cut. The impugned order is otherwise perfectly in order.  

In the result, the appeal stands allowed in part.

Hence,

ORDERED

That the appeal be and the same is allowed on contest in part against the Respondent.  The compensation amount is reduced from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 5,000/-.  Rest of the impugned order shall remain unaltered.