West Bengal

South 24 Parganas

CC/380/2015

Sri Ayan Dutta, S/O Sri Kajal Dutta. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Station Manager, West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd, Bakrahat Customer Centre. - Opp.Party(s)

Madan Mohan Das.

04 Oct 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 0144

 

      C.C. CASE NO. _380_ OF ___2015_

 

DATE OF FILING : 21.8.2015                     DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT:  4/10/2016

 

Present                        :   President       :   Udayan Mukhopadhyay

 

                                        Member(s)    :   Sharmi Basu & Subrata Sarker

                                                                             

COMPLAINANT        :    Sri Ayan Dutta,s/o Sri Kajal Dutta, Village-Kirtankhola, P.O Bakhrahat, Dist. S-24 Parganas, Pin-743377

 

-VERSUS  -

 

O.P/O.Ps                            :     Station Manager, West State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. Bakhrahat Customer Care Centre, Bakhrahat, P.O Bakhrahat, Dist. South 24-Parganas, Pin-743377

_______________________________________________________________________

                                                            J  U  D  G  E  M  E  N  T

Udayan Mukhopadhyay, President

This is an application under section 12 of the C.P Act, 1986 filed by the complainant on the ground that he is a consumer being Consumer ID no. 112200571 with meter no.55673616 and used to pay according to the consumption of electric charges since long back. It has claimed that a duplicate bill of an amount of Rs. 8453/- was raised for consumption of energy for 1064 units showing previous reading 2457 and present reading 3521 recorded in the month of April 2014. Complainant challenged the said bill comparing the meter recording card which is lying with the complainant and requested the O.P to submit the correct bill as the meter reading is incorrect, arbitrary without physical verification . The O.P was satisfied regarding the allegations of the complainant and requested the complainant to pay the amount during the month of April 2014 , May 2014 and June, 2014 totaling to Rs. 8639/- with an assurance that bill would be drawn correctly in lawful manner in future and complainant was also told to pay minimum charges only according to the rule till meter reading touches the consumption of energy in unit 3521 as shown in the said duplicate bill. Thereafter accepting the assurance complainant Rs.8639/- on 27.10.2014. It has further alleged that the O.P again in deceitful manner and without physical verification of meter served a bill to be paid by the complainant during the month of July 2014, August, 2014 and September, 2014 amounting to Rs. 6638/- for the consumption of charges showing previous unit 3521 and present reading 4350 as on 14.7.2014 and in addition Rs.8637/- totaling to Rs.15,132/- . Thereafter complainant protested the fabricated bill and having satisfied with the grievance of the complainant served a bill to be paid during the month of October, 2014, November 2014 and December 2014 totaling to Rs.116/- showing consumption of energy is 3521 unit as previous reading 3537 on 7.1.2015 , the date of meter reading.  Accordingly complainant paid the said bill on 27.1.2015 . Against the O.P without physical verification of the meter served a bill claiming Rs.7573/- to be paid during the month of January to March 2015 showing the meter reading 3537 unit, present reading 4577. Once again complainant challenged the said bill and requested the O.P to visit the meter to ascertain the correct meter reading and accordingly O.P visited the place on 29.4.2015 and on inspection it was recorded that present reading  2449 in presence of the complainant which far less than the bill served showing 5447. Thereafter the O.P admitting the same and in order to avoid further liabilities and responsibilities manufactured a plea vide letter dated 2.5.2015 which is strongly denied by the complainant and thereafter send a letter dated 19.6.2015 and directed the complainant to deposit the amount of Rs. 7573/- with an assurance to adjust in the next bill. It has been alleged that without taking any corrective measure O.P-1 served the bill showing 5477 units on 5.4.2015  and 4577 on 12.7.2015 as current reading  claiming payment of Rs. 5083/-  within 22.7.2015 , Rs.33/- within 21.8.2015 and Rs.33 within 21.9.2015 without reflecting the correct meter reading. Needless to mention that in earlier occasion the amount of Rs.5083/- was never due. So, in order to stop this type of unfair trade practice and generating bill without physical verification, complainant compelled to file this case with a prayer to issue electric bill as per correct meter reading of meter no. 55673616 and to adjust Rs.8639/- paid by the complainant taking into consideration all the units 2489 on  29.4.2015 and subsequent thereto till physical verification and not to disconnect the electric connection till adjustment, litigation cost of Rs.20,000/- , compensation Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and harassment.

The O.P contested the case by filing written version and as usual claimed not maintainable. It is the positive case of the O.P that instant allegation is connection with billing dispute which have to be referred to the CGRO/RGRO at the first instance and if dissatisfied then the appeal lies before the Ld. Ombudsman . So, there is no opportunity to get remedy from this ld. Forum. Apart from that, it has claimed cited with decision reported in 2009 CTJ 1062 (SC) (CP) that the remedy is available under the particular Act, General Act being COPRA cannot supersede the same.   As such the petition is not the subject under COPRA. Apart from that the O.P has relied a decision of the Hon’ble State Commission for lacking jurisdiction to decide the billing dispute. It has claimed that the bill for the month of April 2014 was raised on estimated basis as per WBERC Guideline 55/WBERC 3.7.1 due to non-accessibility of consumer’s premises (door lock). It has further stated that if the bill is found excess due to estimation unit in that event same will be adjusted with subsequent bill with advance reading and the said bill has already been paid by the complainant on 27.10.2014 and further bill of July, August, September, 2014 fore Rs.6638/- were regenerated with the minimum charge from the company’s end as per regulation . It has further claimed that on 2.5.2015 after visiting the Consumer’s premises on 29.4.2015 the technician/staff observed that the meter room was found to be door locked condition with huge garbage collected in front of the said meter room and it was advised to the consumer either to make the door open during the meter reading time or keep the meter in a suitable place so that meter reader can get access in the meter room. Accordingly when the meter room is not accessible during the period of meter reading following the regulation as stated above , bill was drawn on estimated basis. Accordingly the claim of the complainant is baseless as the meter room is under locked condition most of the times. So, bill was raised as per WBERC guideline 55. Hence, the O.P prays for dismissal of the case.

Points for decision in this case is whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps or not.

                                                Decision with reasons

It is admitted position from the written version itself that unit showing in the bill in dispute was following the guile of WBERC 55 due to non-accessible of consumer’s premises (door lock)and garbage staged there in front of the meter room. Thus the allegation of the complainant that the bill was raised fictitious without any basis of he actual meter reading is totally correct ,for which, we have to relay the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2013 (3) CPR 670 wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that “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 Sedction 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P Act or the Central Government or the State Government or the organization 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 “ Hazardous service” or the “Service Provider has charged the price in excess of the price fixed by or under any Law”. It is the mandate of the Hon’ble Apex Court.

Here we find that admittedly bill was raised on the basis of a story “door locked”. For argument sake if we find that bill raised for the month of April to June, 2014 totaling to Rs. 8639/- was for door locked but at that time it should be informed by the O.P to the complainant that door was locked for which this type of imaginary bill was obtained and complainant also paid that due. So, in future complainant should be warned but we find from the letter dated 26.5.2014 sent to the Assistant Engineer and Station Manager of Bakhrahat Group Electric Supply office regarding the wrong reading of meter. From the meter card it appears that on 26.5.2014 reading was 2454 but in the concerned bill it was shown wrongly. Thus if the door was locked how the meter reader went to the meter for taking reading and noted in the meter card 2454 on 26.5.2014 and previously on9.4.2014 meter reading 1225. This circumstances clearly suggest that meter room is not locked all the times and if it was locked then it is the duty of the meter reader to knock the consumer and after opening the same meter reading ought to be taken . But inevitable did not happen. It is interesting to point out that on 29.4.2015 one R Matiy TSH visited the premises of the complainant and inspected the meter and report clearly shows that the present reading dated is 29.4.2015 unit 2489 , AC not working, and condition of the meter room has observed that meter room was found locked due to huge dust/garbage in front of the meter room. If this is going to be cleaned then the room may be opened to inspect the meter, otherwise it was advised to shift the meter in a suitable place where the reading can be taken easily without any disturbance. The condition of service cable O.K. Thus inspite of inspection and noting the actual meter reading appearing on that date 2489 why the subsequent bill was raised showing the present reading 4577 previous reading 3537 bill dated 18.4.2015 , again previous reading 3521 present reading 3537 bill dated 15.1.2015, bill dated 16.9.2014 shows previous reading 3521 and present reading 4535.

Thus we find following the guideline of the Hon’ble Supreme Court it is an unfair trade practice adopted by the Service Provider herein O.Ps and we hold ,lending the words of the Hon’ble Apex Court that O.P being a service provider has charged a price in excess of the price fixed by or under any Law since it is not the actual picture of the meter in dispute. So, the judgment relied by the O.Ps in their written version has no leg to stand upon after the latest judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2013 (3) CPR 670 and we are aware that the principle of Law is “Later will prevail”. Herein the judgment passed by the Division bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is the later judgment and on a naked eye we find that this is not a billing dispute , this is a dispute of unfair trade practice adopted by the O.P to squeeze money from the innocent consumer/complainant , particularly when the complainant on good faith inspite of disputing the bill dated April to June, 2014 deposited the said amount on the basis of an assurance that the said amount will be adjusted. But ultimately the squeezing tendency of the O.Ps started thereafter with a plea that door was locked and garbage has staged in front of the door of the meter room ,for which, they have estimated the consumption invoking the power of WBERC Guideline 55. This Act of the O.P clearly knocked the judicial mind of this bench when proceeding is a judicial proceedings in view of Section 13(5) of the C.P Act, 1986 and we must have to observe that “Atom Bomb” was discovered for the betterment of the citizen at large because the same can be used to demolish the surface for construction of road , path etc. and other development works but the same was not always utilized for the said purpose but sometimes it destroyed the country.

Here, in the instant case Regulation 55 of WBERC was passed to protect the consumer in one side and another side the authority may not run loss for want of actual consumption but in all times it has not stated that the said regulation will be acted upon month by month without solving the dispute. So, for the first time when the meter room was found locked and staged by garbage , bill was sent invoking that power as stated above. But why the said practice will be continued? This is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

It is also needed to be mentioned here that when the inspection report dated 29.4.2015 suggests that condition of service cable is O.K. and meter testing report is also satisfactory as shown in the inspection report since there is no adverse comment, what prompted the O.P authority not to raise the actual bill as per meter reading and inspite of knowing the actual meter reading on the date of inspection i.e. 2489 what prompted them not to raise bill on the basis of the said bill thereafter. This things clearly suggest glaring example of deficiency in service.

With that observation it is ,

                                                                                    Ordered

That the complaint case is allowed on contest against the O.P.

O.Ps are hereby directed to first adjust Rs.8639/- taking into consideration the meter reading 2489 as per their inspection report and raise subsequent bill thereafter within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which, O.P has to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.5000/- to the complainant and if the bill is regularized as per meter reading taking into consideration the unit 2489 on 29.4.2015 and thereafter onwards, then the cost and compensation has not to be paid by the O.Ps, otherwise the said amount has to be paid to the complainant.

The complainant is directed to open the padlock of the meter room and the front of the meter room should be cleaned for ingress and egress of the meter reader for the schedule period of meter reading positively.

Let a plain copy of this order be served upon the complainant free of cost and one copy be sent to the O.Ps through speed post.

Member                                                      Member                                                                President

Dictated and corrected by me

                               

                        President

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The judgment in separate sheet is ready and is delivered in open Forum. As it is ,                                      

                                                            Ordered

That the complaint case is allowed on contest against the O.P.

O.Ps are hereby directed to first adjust Rs.8639/- taking into consideration the meter reading 2489 as per their inspection report and raise subsequent bill thereafter within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which, O.P has to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.5000/- to the complainant and if the bill is regularized as per meter reading taking into consideration the unit 2489 on 29.4.2015 and thereafter onwards, then the cost and compensation has not to be paid by the O.Ps, otherwise the said amount has to be paid to the complainant.

The complainant is directed to open the padlock of the meter room and the front of the meter room should be cleaned for ingress and egress of the meter reader for the schedule period of meter reading positively.

Let a plain copy of this order be served upon the complainant free of cost and one copy be sent to the O.Ps through speed post.

Member                                                      Member                                                                President