Tripura

StateCommission

A/31/2016

Chief Managing Director - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri. Nipendra Datta - Opp.Party(s)

Mrs. Sujata Deb, Ms. P. Roy

01 Apr 2017

ORDER

 

Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala.

 

 

 

Case No.A.31.2016

 

 

1. Chief Managing Director,

Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd.,

Bidyut Bhaban,

Bhuturia, Agartala, West Tripura.

 

2. Senior Manager,

Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd.,

Sonamura Electrical Sub-Division,

Sonamura, Shepahijala.

… … … … Appellants/Opposite Parties.

 

 

 

1. Sri Nripendra Datta,

S/o Late Ramesh Datta,

Dhullai, P.O. & P.S. Sonamura,

District – Shepahijala,

 

… … … … … Respondent/Complainant.

 

Present

 

Mr. Justice U.B. Saha,

President,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

Mrs. Sobhana Datta,

Member,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

Mr. Narayan Chandra Sharma,

Member,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

 

For the Appellants:                     Ms. Sujata Deb (Gupta), Adv.

For the Respondent:                Mr. Swarup Pandit, Adv.  

Date of Hearing and Delivery of Judgment: 01.04.2017.

 

 

J U D G M E N T [O R A L]

 

 

U.B. Saha, J,

The instant appeal is filed by the appellants Chief Managing Director, Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as T.S.E.C.L) Bidyut Bhaban, Agartala and Senior Manager, Sonamura Electrical Sub-Division under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the judgment dated 13.06.2016 passed by the Ld. District Consumers Disputes Redressal Forum, West Tripura, Agartala (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Case No. C.C. 17 of 2015 whereby and whereunder the Ld. District Forum partly allowed the complaint case directing the appellants to refund the electricity charges for 451 units and also pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the petitioner within two months, if the aforesaid amount is not paid, then the same will carry interest @9% per annum.       

2. Heard Ms. Sujata Deb (Gupta), Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellants (hereinafter referred to as opposite party nos.1 & 2) as well as Shri Swarup Pandit, Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondent (hereinafter referred to as complainant).
3. The brief facts of the case is that the complainant Sri Nripendra Datta, owner of a Grill Welding House applied for electricity connection to the opposite party no.2 and accordingly, the electricity connection was provided in the year 2003. The allegation of the complainant is that, in the year 2011, the complainant found that the meter provided by the opposite party no.2 became defective. After receipt of the complaint from the complainant, the opposite party no.2 changed the defective meter by providing a new meter in the month of September 2012. After installation of the new meter, the complainant again complained to the appellant-opposite party no.2 informing him that the new meter is also defective one. Then the opposite party no.2 sent some persons for checking the new meter installed in the factory premises of the complainant and according to those persons, the meter was O.K. In the month of December, 2012 and January, 2013, the opposite parties raised the bill for the aforesaid period of 551 units which was according to the complainant, abnormal and higher in side. The opposite parties raised the bill for the period up to 16.12.2011 - 55 units, 10.01.2012 - 55 units, 15.02.2012 - 55 units, 06.03.2012 - 55 units, 16.04.2012 - 55 units, 04.05.2012 - 55 units, 04.06.2012 - 55 units and 04.07.2012 - 55 units i.e. from 16.12.2011 to 04.07.2012, the energy bills were raised 55 units per month as provisional, but all on a sudden, for the month of December 2012 and January 2013, the opposite party raised the bill for 551 units without examining the complaint of the complainant regarding his allegation that the subsequently installed meter is also defective one. 
4. The opposite parties appeared by way of filing written objection denying the claim of the complainant. It is stated that the complainant’s prayer is vague and unreasonable and the same is liable to be rejected. It is also contended that the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to decide a dispute regarding the excess billing as there is a specific Forum for deciding the dispute between the complainant and the opposite parties i.e. Tripura Electricity Regulatory Commission, wherein Chief Grievance Redressal Officer is functioning to decide billing disputes.
5. Ld. District Forum hearing the parties and considering the evidence on record passed the impugned judgment as stated (supra).
6. Ms. Deb (Gupta), Ld. Counsel submits that the complainant has running a welding house and in a welding house, consumption of electricity may vary time to time. She also submits that according to the Ld. District Forum also, consumption of electricity in a welding house sometime may be higher and sometime may be lower. But the Ld. District Forum has passed the impugned judgment on presumption without deciding that aspects of billing of the higher amount.
7. Mr. Pandit, Ld. Counsel appearing for the complainant submits that he has no complaint against the opposite parties regarding any other bill except the bill for the period of December 2012 and January 2013 i.e. bill raising for 551 units for the said period. He also submits that the opposite parties without deciding as to whether the newly installed meter is defective one or not raised the bill for 551 units, whereas for the subsequent period, the bill was raised for lesser unit. Thus according to him, it would be proper to direct the opposite parties for placing the meter in question to the Electrical Inspector for deciding the dispute between the parties.
8. We have gone through the evidence on record as well as the submission made by Ms. Deb (Gupta) that complaints of an individual consumer like the complainant are outside the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum as separate Forum for redressal of individual consumers grievance has been created under Section 42 of the Electricity Act, 2003. From the evidence, it appears that admittedly the disputes is regarding the meter reading, but the alleged defective meter was never referred to the Electrical Inspector for adjudication of the disputes, rather the opposite parties took a unilateral decision that the meter is O.K. and on the basis of the report of their employees without referring the dispute to the Electrical Inspector as per provisions of law. 
9. In view of the above, when this Commission proposed for directing the opposite parties for referring the disputes to the Electrical Inspector regarding the fact as to whether the meter is correct or faulty as alleged by the complainant, then Ld. Counsel appearing for both the parties agreed to the proposal of this Commission that the appeal can be disposed of directing the opposite parties to decide the issue regarding the allegation of defect of meter to the Electrical Inspector and the parties will be bound by the decision of the Electrical Inspector. More so, the opposite parties i.e. T.S.E.C.L. will be at liberty to raise the bill on the basis of the report of the Electrical Inspector for the period of December 2012 and January 2013 and the complainant will also be bound by the report of the Electrical Inspector.
10. In view of the above submission of the Ld. Counsel of the parties, the appeal is disposed of with a direction to the appellant-opposite parties to refer the dispute regarding the defective meter of the complainant to the Electrical Inspector within a period of two months and the Electrical Inspector having jurisdiction to decide the disputes with respect to correctness of the meter shall decide the disputes regarding the alleged defective meter in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date of reference. If the meter installed in the welding house of the complainant is necessary to change for the purpose of deciding the issue by the Electrical Inspector, then the opposite parties shall install another meter provisionally so that the supply of electric power to the complainant is not hampered in anyway. After the decision of the Electrical Inspector regarding the meter in dispute, the opposite parties will be at liberty to raise the bill on the basis of the report of the Electrical Inspector for the period from December 2012 to January 2013 and if it is found by the Electrical Inspector that the appellants raised bill (s) higher than the actual bill, then the excess payment shall be adjusted with future bill (s).           

Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned judgment passed by the Ld. District Forum is modified to the extent as indicated above.

Office is directed to refund the amount deposited by the appellant-opposite parties with this Commission.  

Send down the records to the Ld. District Forum, West Tripura, Agartala.

 

 

MEMBER State Commission Tripura MEMBER State Commission Tripura PRESIDENT State Commission Tripura