The instant appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) is at the behest of opposite parties to impeach the final order/judgment dated 17th August, 2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hooghly at Chinsurah (in short, ‘Ld. District Forum’) in Consumer Complaint No. 127 of 2016. By the impugned order, the Ld. District Forum allowed the complaint lodged by respondent Shri Sankar Prasad Chatterjee under Section 12 of the Act with certain directions upon the respondents/appellants like - to refund or adjust an amount of Rs. 8,000/-, to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for harassment and mental agony and Rs. 10,000/- as costs of litigation.
The respondent herein being complainant lodged the complaint before the Ld. District Forum asserting that he being resident of holding No. 4F/A, Annapurna Apartment situated at Barabazar Main Road, Chandannagar, Dist.- Hooghly is a consumer under the West Bengal Electricity Distribution Company Limited (W.B.S.E.D.C.L.) being Meter No. T2290991 (New) and No. 0660113 (Old) corresponding to Consumer ID No. 163192204. The complainant used to pay the electricity bills regularly. However on 31.05.2016 the complainant received electricity bill for an amount of Rs. 19,736/- for two quarterly periods from 09.11.2015 to 30.04.2016 but bill represents an amount of Rs. 6,720/- for one quarter from 20.02.2016 to 28.04.2016 and the disputed amount of Rs. 13,016/- from 10.11.2015 to 09.02.2016. The complainant has raised objection against such bill by communicating several letters to the opposite parties and the opposite parties have admitted by a reply on 14.06.2016 that the meter seems defective. The complainant alleged that despite of the same, the opposite parties have not considered to rectify the previous bill of Rs. 13,016/- which should have been equal to the units consumed during the previous year corresponding period of 704 units. However, the complainant has already paid the full amount of Rs. 19,582/- with rebate with objection and prays for refund of the excess amount or adjustments with the next bill. However, as the representations of the complainant remained unattended, the respondent lodged the complaint before the Ld. District Forum with prayer for several reliefs, viz.- (a) an order directing the opposite parties to refund or adjust the excessive amount; (b) an order directing the opposite parties to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony and (c) Rs. 5,000/- as costs of litigation etc.
The appellant no. 1 herein i.e. Station Manager of W.B.S.E.D.C.L by filing a written version resisted the allegation of the complainant by stating that on the request of the complainant for replacing the meter in place of old meter, a new meter was installed on 09.03.2016 and it was found on 03.03.2016 that the old meter vide no. L00660113 was running in good condition and during inspection of the said meter no abnormalities was found or detected. The O.P. No. 1 has categorically stated that the bill vide Invoice No. 480000297530 for the consumption period between 09.02.2016 and 28.04.2016 was generated according to the rules and regulations and as such the complaint should be dismissed with costs.
However, at the time of hearing the opposite party no. 1 did not appear to contest before the Ld. District Forum.
The Ld. District Forum after assessing the materials on record by the impugned order allowed the complaint with the directions as indicated above. To assail the said order, the opposite parties have come up in this Commission with the present appeal.
Mr. Srijan Nayak, Ld. Advocate for the appellants has submitted that the dispute was essentially a billing dispute and in accordance with the Notification No. 55/W.B.E.R.C dated 7th August, 2013 the Ld. District Forum should not have entertained the complaint as there was specific provision to ventilate the grievances before the Regional Grievances Redressal Officer or Central Grievances Redressal Officer or to an Ombudsman, as the case may be and as the Ld. District Forum has proceeded in a wrong way to decide the dispute, the impugned order should be set aside.
Per contra, Mr. Susanta Kumar Chatterjee, Ld. Advocate for the respondent supporting the decision of the Ld. District Forum has contended that when the appellants/opposite parties have an opportunity to resist the allegation of the respondent before the Ld. District Forum by adducing cogent evidence, the impugned order should not be interfered with.
I have scrutinised the materials on record and considered the submission advanced by the Ld. Advocates appearing for the respective parties.
Undisputedly, complainant is a resident of holding No. 4F/A, Annapurna Apartment situated at Barabazar Main Road, Chandannagar, Dist.- Hooghly within the local limits of Chandannagar Municipal Corporation was a ‘consumer’ of W.B.S.E.D.C.L. being Consumer Meter No. T2290991 (New) and 0660113 (Old) corresponding to Consumer ID No. 166331992204. On 31.05.2016 a bill generated by the licensing authority was served upon the respondent where an amount of Rs. 19,736/- was claimed for two quarterly periods from 09.11.2015 to 30.04.2016. The said bill represents the amount of Rs. 6,720/- for one quarter from 10.02.2016 to 28.04.2016 and the disputed amount of Rs. 13,016/- from 10.11.2015 to 09.02.2016. Evidently, the respondent raised objection against such bill by a letter dated 08.06.2016. A reply to that letter was given by Assistant Engineer/Station Manager of Chandannagar – III, Customer Care Centre of W.B.S.E.D.C.L. on 14.06.2016 stating that the meter in question was replaced by the technical unit and another new meter being T2290991 was attached into circuit and finally it was found that the meter in question was absolutely fine. In other words, since the meter was found absolutely alright, the claim of licensing authority was quite justified and therefore, there is no need for further adjustment, if any, in the subsequent bill.
The pleading of the parties and the materials on record clearly manifest that the dispute is apparently a billing dispute. For appreciation of the situation, it would be worthwhile to refer Clause 3.5 of Notification No. 55 of West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission published in Kolkata Gazette (Extra-Ordinary) dated 7th August, 2013 appears to be relevant which provides:
“3.5.1(a) – In case, there is any dispute in respect of the billed amount, the consumer may lodged a complaint with the Grievance Redressal Officer or the Central Grievance Redressal Officer of the licensee and thereafter to the Ombudsman in appeal against the order of the Grievance Redressal Officer or the Central Grievance Redressal Officer, in accordance with the provisions of the concerned Regulations. In such a case, the aggrieved consumer, pending disposal of the dispute, may, under protest, pay the lesser amount out of the following two options: -
- 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,
the amount so calculated provisionally as per Clause (ii) above by the licensee and tendered by the consumer shall be accepted by the licensee against that bill on provisional basis”.
The provisions of Regulation 3.5.2 reads as under:-
“3.5.2. If any agreed consumer makes a provisional payment, as aforesaid, no penal measure including disconnection for non-payment shall be taken against him till the dispute is settled either at the level of the Grievance Redressal Officer or the Central Grievance Redressal Officer or the Ombudsman, as the case may be. However, imposition of a delayed payment, surcharge, if applicable shall not count towards a penal measure for this purpose”.
The aforesaid provisions of Clause 3.5 of Notification No. 55/W.B.E.R.C. dated 7th August, 2013 flows from the Electricity Act, 2003 and as such it has a statutory force. Needless to say, if the law prescribes to do certain thing in a particular way or in a particular manner, it should be done with the intention of legislature and a Court/Forum has no authority to bypass such legislative command. When with reference to the letter of respondent/complainant dated 08.06.2016 a reply was given by the Assistant Engineer/Station Manager of the concerned Customer Care Centre on 14.06.2016 that after replacing another meter it was found that the disputed meter was in good running condition, the only option left for the respondent/complainant was to approach to the RGRO or CGRO or Ombudsman, as the case may be for ventilating his grievances, if any.
I am not unmindful to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2013) 8 SCC 491 [U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. –Vs. – Anis Ahmed] that 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.
However, there is no machinery before the Forum constituted under the Act to ascertain as to whether the meter in question was defective or not. Such a dispute cannot be adjudicated basing upon oral or documentary evidence without evidence of an expert in the field. In the prayer clause of the petition of complaint, respondent did not make any prayer for appointment of any technical person to ascertain the correctness of the meter in question. There is no evidence whatsoever to indicate that the respondent has any ‘hostile animus’ or animosity with any employee/staff of W.B.S.E.D.C.L for which an inflated bill had been raised. Therefore, in order to contradict the assessment of the licensing authority, the respondent should have invoked Clause 3.5 by lodging a complaint before the appropriate authority. Therefore, the Ld. District Forum had no reason to pass any order by ignoring the report given by an officer of the licensing authority addressing to the respondent on 14.06.2016.
Accordingly, the impugned order being not in conformity with the provisions of law it is liable to be set aside.
For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is allowed on contest. Considering the facts and circumstance, however, there will be no order as to costs.
Resultantly, the CC/127/2016 stands dismissed.
The Registrar of the Commission is directed to send a copy of the order to the Ld. District Forum of all the Districts of the State including Hooghly for information subject to approval of Hon’ble President of the Commission.
