21.04.2015

JAGANNATH BAG, MEMBER

          The present appeal is directed against the Order of the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South 24-Parganas, dated 10.06.2014 in case No. CC/43/2014, whereby the complaint was allowed on contest against OPs with cost and compensation, apart from direction upon OPs, inter alia, to withdraw all bills for the period from December 2012 up to the disconnection of electricity on 07.12.2013.

          The complaint case, in brief, was as follows:

          The Complainant enjoyed electric connection in his house provided through meter No. HH431648 installed in the name of his father, Guru Prasad Basu, who died on 22.04.1988. Electric bills as raised by the OP/Appellant were being paid by the Complainant. The bill with 3403 consumption units was paid upto 07.12.2012. Thereafter, on 08.03.2013 , an exorbitant bill of Rs. 21,287/- for December 2012 to February 2013 being raised, the Complainant sent a letter of objection. The OP sent other fictitious bills dated 11.07.2013 , 17.09.2013 and 25.11.2013 illegally imposing the liability of another meter, being No. 1065 5611. The Opposite Party wrongly and illegally editing the meter number raised an amount of Rs.16,052/- from the Complainant. The OP disconnected the electric service for non-payment of the unlawful claim of Rs. 16,052/- on or about 07.12.13. In the said circumstances,  a consumer complaint was lodged before the Ld. Forum below with prayer for direction upon OPs (1) to restore the electric connection replacing the faulty meter without imposing any charge ; (2) to cancel the fictitious bills dated 10.12.2012 , 08.03.2013, 11.07.2013 , 17.09.2013 and 25.11.2013 against the Complainant’s meter and (3) to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- , apart from payment of costs.

          The complaint has been contested by the OPs who, inter alia, contended that there was no agreement between the Complainant and the OP/ WBSEDCL. Accordingly, the Complainant was not a consumer. It was stated that the original consumer, namely, Guru Prasad Basu, was provided with meter No. 10655611 on 12.02.1977 and the said meter being burnt out another meter under No. HH431648 was installed on receipt of a sum of Rs. 550/- against the burnt / defective meter. The second meter number was edited on 11.07.2013 to the data base.  The house of the Complainant remained under lock and key condition for which minimum bills were raised on ‘0’unit consumption and such bills were paid by the Complainant . The fact of death of the original consumer was not intimated and no application for transfer of meter in the name of the Complainant was filed. No fictitious bill was raised. The total outstanding bill was found to be Rs. 21,045/- from December 2012 to May 2013. Bills have been raised on actual consumption of electricity . The Complainant’s case being a case of billing dispute , he should have referred the matter to the Regional  Grievance Redressal Officer and in case he was not satisfied with the order of the RGRO, an appeal could be preferred before the Ombudsman. Accordingly, the complaint was liable to be dismissed.

          Ld. Forum below after having heard the Ld. Counsels for the parties and having perused the materials on record observed that there was no paper produced before them showing that meter No. 1065 5611 was replaced . Again, it was observed that two bills have been drawn for the period from December 2012 to February 2013, one for Rs. 21,267.40 and the other for Rs. 16,052.89/-. It was also observed that one bill was against the burnt meter and the other showed two meters. Ld. Forum below held that Sections 134-140 of the Electricity Act would not be attracted as the Complainant has, under Section 2 (1) / c and 2 (1)/0 of the Consumer Protection Act , the right to file complaint for deficiency in service, adoption of unfair trade practice etc. It is also observed by the Ld. Forum below that the old meter was replaced after the death of the father of the Complainant, but ‘ no paper was filed to establish that meter No. 10655611 was replaced’. Ld. Forum below on the ground of unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, allowed the complaint with cost of Rs. 4,000/-. The OPs were directed to withdraw all bills for the period from December 2012 and issue fresh bills for payment on average of Rs. 825/- per month beginning from December 2012 up to the date of disconnection. The OPs were also directed to pay compensation of Rs. 1,000/- to the Complainant for harassment and mental agony.

          Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of the Ld. Forum below , the Appellant has come up before this Commission with the prayer for direction to set aside the impugned order on several grounds .

          Ld. Advocate appearing for the Appellant submitted that the Complainant / Respondent has no locus standi in presenting himself as a consumer as the subject meter stands installed in the name of Guru Pada Basu  who died on 22.04.1988 . No intimation about the death of the recorded consumer was sent and the Complainant has been enjoying electricity unauthorisedly from the service connection. He is not a natural beneficiary of the deceased consumer . Again, the bills raised on the basis of actual meter readings  can not be challenged before the Consumer Forum as there is a specific grievance redressal machinery . A billing dispute may be referred to the Regional Grievance Redressal Officer and if not satisfied with the order of such RGRO, a Complainant may file appeal  before the Ld. Ombudsman. The Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate any billing dispute. Considering such grounds, the impugned order may be set aside.

      The Respondent in person submitted that he was the legal heir of his deceased father in whose name the meter No. HH 431648 was installed . The meter No. 10655611 is a fictitious meter and the Appellant has been charging electricity bills in respect of that meter which is an unfair trade practice and he is not bound to pay such bills as raised in respect of meter no. 10655611. It was also submitted by him that he has already applied for change of name in respect of the meter installed in the name of his father. But no action has been taken by the Appellant electricity authority. He is suffering a lot without electricity since the date of  disconnection by the Appellant . As per Section 2 (15) of the Electricity Act, he is to be treated as a consumer as his premises are already connected for the purpose of electricity. He expressed his willingness to pay Rs. 825/- per month as electricity charges for the period from December 2012 up to the date of disconnection and accordingly prayed that the order of the Ld. Forum below be upheld .

                                      Decision with Reasons

          We have gone through the memorandum of  appeal, together with copies of the impugned order, the petition of complaint , the written version filed by the OPs before the Ld. Forum below and other records.

          It is a fact that the Complainant is enjoying electricity from the meter installed in the name of his father and though the Complainant’s father died on 22.04.1988, no intimation about the death of the recorded consumer was sent to the service provider . However, under Section 2 (15) of the Electricity Act, the definition of  a consumer includes a person whose premises are for the time being connected ‘for the purpose of receiving electricity’. In the present case, the Complainant’s premises, being the house inherited and mutated in his name, appears to have been connected by electricity. Accordingly, the Complainant can not be treated as an encroacher or unauthorized occupier of the premises which is already connected by electricity. Though the Complainant should have informed the death of his father and should have applied for  change of meter in his name  , his status as a beneficiary of the service connection installed in the name of the original consumer can not be ignored altogether . In that position, the Complainant possesses the right to ventilate his grievance in respect of the meter which showed exorbitant reading that led to unusual bill amount.  It is obvious that the Appellant raised the bills in respect of such meter as was admittedly burnt out. This is not wholly a case of billing dispute but the dispute in question arose from the defect in the meter as well. Hence, the order of the Ld. Forum below directing the Appellant to issue fresh bill on average of Rs.825/- for the months from December 2012 to the date of disconnection appears to be reasonable , in view of the fact that a total sum of Rs. 2473/- has been raised for September to November 2012 which has not been objected to by the  Complainant. However, the Complainant’s responsibility in the matter of filing application form for change of meter in his name not being carried out prior to disposal of the complaint case, other reliefs as granted by the Ld. Forum below do not appear to be justified. The impugned order , therefore, needs  to be modified . Hence,

                                      Ordered

           that the appeal be and the same is allowed in part . The impugned order stands modified to the effect that the Appellant shall raise fresh bills for payment of Rs. 825/- per month from December 2012 to the date of disconnection and the OPs shall transfer the existing electric connection with installation of a new meter in the name of the Complainant after observing all necessary formalities within a period of 40 days from the date of this order. Other parts of the order shall stand deleted. There shall be no order as to costs.