This complaint is filed by the Complainant U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (as amended up to date) alleging deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice against the OP as the OP did not take any step to redress his grievance till filing of this complaint.
The complainant’s case in brief is as follows,
Complainant was provided with the Electricity connection for his domestic purposes in his house at the mentioned above address vide Consumer ID no. 422046913 & Meter no.G01821070. (Annexure： 1 ： Meter Card appertaining to Meter no.G01821070 in the name of the complainant). Complainant stated that the bill for consumption was not abnormal rather was normal as per the load and the consumption of electricity and the average bill used to come to the tune of Rs.600/- to Rs.800/- per quarter.(Annexure：2 : Payment Receipt appertaining to Consumer ID no.422046913 in the name of the complainant for the period Feb to April 2018).
Complainant stated that the bill abruptly increased for the same load and consumption of electricity for the period of August to October 2018 which shot up to Rs.35, 046/-. There was reading scribed in the mismatch in the meter reading and bill. Although meter no. G01821070 is installed at his premises but meter no. G0187446N appears in the bills forwarded by the O.P.s to the complainant.
After finding no other alternative complainant initially approached the Assistant Director, Directorate of Consumer Affairs and Fair Businesses Practices, Regional Office, Jalpaiguri with his grievances on 02/11/2018 and complaint no. 882/55/EG 18-19 was duly registered. The O.P.s through their authorized representative appeared before the said office on 20/11/2018 for hearing. The AE 6 Station Manager informed the office that the erroneous bill had been cancelled and new bill has been generated in his name of Rs.1, 720/- vide bi1l dated 01/11/2018 and that once the bill is paid by the complainant there will be no outstanding dues. The O.P.s also agreed to change the meter number so mentioned in the bill. (Annexure：3: Complaint and order sheet of complaint no. 882/55/EG 18-19 the Assistant Director， Directorate of Consumer Affairs and Fair Businesses Practices, Regional office, Jalpaiguri) (Annexure： 4: New bill generated in the name of the complainant of Rs.1, 720/- vide bill dated 01/11/2018). Complainant paid the amount of Rs.1, 720/- on 20/11/2018 for the period Nov 2018 to Jan 2019. (Annexure： 5 ： Payment Receipt of new bill generated in the name of the complainant of Rs.1, 720/- vide bill dated 01/11/2018)
According to the complainant his misery continued as the person taking the reading told him that the spot billing was not possible of the meter installed at his premises as the same was showing outstanding of Rs.36,000/- and told the complainant to contact the AE 6 Station Manager, WBSEDCL. complainant went to the AE & Station Manager, WBSEDCL, in the month of May, a bill was handed over to the complainant Rs.638.12/- for the period May to July 2019, but while payment he paid an amount of Rs.1025/- at the instance of the staffs of the O.P.s. (Annexure:6 : Bill of Rs.638.12/- for the period May to July 2019) (Annexure：7 : Payment Receipt of Rs.1025/- against Bill ofRs.638.12/- for the period May to July 2019). Thereafter the complainant submitted a written complaint at the Office of the Station Manager, Jalpaiguri on 05/08/2019 for collection of Meter Reading, issuance of Bills and also replacement of the Meter. He was handed over a Bill of Rs.638.04/- for the period Aug to Oct 2019. (Annexure: 8: Written complaint filed at the office of the Station Manager, Jalpaiguri on 05/08/2019)(Annexure：9: Bill of Rs.638.04/- for the period Aug to Oct 2019).Thereafter on 15/12/2019 complainant was handed over a bill for the period of Nov 2019 to Jan 2020 amounting Rs.43,946.64/-. He could not pay the same and thus several times went to the O.P. no.1 for rectification of the bill amounts but to no avail. (Annexure：10 ： Bill of Rs.43,946.64/- for the period Nov 2019 to Jan 2020)
Complainant stated that the personnel from the O.P.s came to his premises for disconnecting the domestic connection on the plea that the bills were not paid.
The case of the complainant is that the meter readings were not collected from the installed meter at his premises rather unprecedented bills were fabricated over arbitrary data and were being handed over to him and thereby he is forced to pay much more than the actual consumption. It is the version of the complainant that it is a duty cast upon the O.P. No.1 and 2 to maintain hassle free metering equipments and service of electricity, to which they have miserably failed which tantamount to deficiency in service and thereby put your complainant into a great deal of harassment, Inconvenience frustration, expenses and mental agony. The O.P.s failed to resolve the matter and harassed the complainant, following which the complainant filed this case before this Commission.
Relief claimed by the complainant
I. Direction to the O.P.s to restructure the bill for the period of Nov 2019 to Jan 2020 amounting Rs.43, 946.64/-;
II. Direction to the O.P.s to collect proper readings from the meter installed at the premises of the complainant and issue spot bills to the complainant;
III. Direction to the O.P.s to remove and replace the meter with a new and correct one and correct the Meter no. in the Bills;
IV. Direction to the O.P. to pay to the complainant the amount of Rs. 50,000/-(rupees fifty thousand only) towards compensation for the harassment, inconvenience, frustration, expenses and mental agony suffered by the complainant, on its part;
V. Pay to the complainant the amount of Rs.20, 000/- (rupees twenty thousand only) towards the cost of the present litigation.
Both the opposite party contest the matter by submitting W.V, Evidence on affidavit, written notes of argument and also participate in the hearing of argument.
Opposite parties submits the followings.
- The case is neither maintainable in law nor on facts
- That, the case is barred by law of limitation estoppels & acquisance .The case also barred the provisions of Sec 42 and 43 of Electricity Act 2003
- The statements made in the different parts of the petition are all false and denied by this O.P
Details information of Electric connection provided to complainant-
CONSUMER ID-422046913, INSTALLATION NO-1787052, NAME- Paritosh Debnath
Address- Balapara Vivekananda Pally, Jalpaiguri, METER NO- G01821070, TARIFF-Domestic-Rural, Applied load 0.42KVA, physically load found- Fan 2 nos, LED light 5 nos, Color TV 1 no. Internal electric wiring condition is very poor. Joint is observed in many places of internal electric wiring. (Photocopy attached). O.Ps also submits that previously the meter (no 7S1329621) was installed at the premises of Poritosh Debnath having consumer ID- 422046913.
The said meter was found defective and was replaced as per norms of WBSEDCL on Sept 2017. The new meter no is GO1821070. But it was replaced with a wrong meter number in the consumer database. Thereafter the party approached the District Consumer Affairs and Fair Business Practices, Jalpaiguri (Complaint no: 882/55/EG/18-19). This O.P appeared in the tripartite meeting on 20.11.2018 and thereafter rectified the aforesaid lacunae as per the direction of the consumer Affairs Dept. Thereafter there was an error from the meter reader during quarterly reading where under-billing was done in every quarter from Nov'18 to Nov'19. Suddenly during Nov 19, the matter came to the notice of the undersigned that there was an accumulation of 4538 units at such premises due to fault of meter reader. The meter reading image is enclosed which clearly establishes that the meter reading on 04.02.2020 was 5415. It reflects that there had been a consumption of 5415 units from 01.09.2017 to 04.02.2020.Considering the load pattern of the consumer, the claim is quite justified. But there had been a lapse from the part of meter reader who is an employee of NGO, due to which the claim of 4538 units out of 5415 consumed had not been claimed earlier but claimed suddenly in the bill of Nov’19 as per norms of the company .On getting the said bill the complaint has not given any application for getting tariff benefits. Such bill may be regenerated and tariff benefit may be given with the payment option in easy installments (6-9) may be provided to the consumer if it is ordered by the Ld. Commission. The OP denies and disputes all the allegations leveled against them in the petition .There are no deficiency of services on the part of the O.P and the case is liable to be dismissed with costs. The petitioner/complainant never complained of the defect in the meter. However, during the trial the O.P installed check meter in the premises to see the actual position of the existing meter on 20.3.23 and on 20.4 23 the meter was found without any fault. O.Ps submits that That, in case of under billing the Distribution company WBSEDCL being the company owned and managed by the Govt of W.B has the right to claim the under billing amount within a period of 30 years as per Art 112A Limitation Act. The meter is /was not defective .Accordingly the complainant is bound to pay the charges of the units shown in the meter. There is no deficiency of services on the part of the O.P and the case is liable to be dismissed with costs.
Having heard the Ld. Advocate of both the side and on perusal of the Complaint, Written Version as well as documents filed by the parties, the following points are to be deciding by this Commission.
Points for consideration
Whether the complainant is a consumer?
Whether the case is maintainable under the C.P. Act 2019?
Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. as alleged by the Complainant?
Is the Complainant entitled to get any award and relief as prayed for as per the prayer of his Complaint?
Point number 1&2
“U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. versus Anis Ahmad, 2013 (8) SCC 491 has held as under:
“47. In view of the observation made above, we hold 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”.
This complaint is filed by the Complainant U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (as amended up to date) alleging deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice against the OP as the OP did not take any step to redress his grievance till filing of this complaint. O.P issued consumer number to the complainant.
This commission has both the pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction to try the case.
Point number 3&4
In a very significant judgment with far reaching consequences, the THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA in a learned, laudable, landmark and latest judgment titled Pradeep Kumar And Anr. vs Post Master General and Ors in Civil Appeal No. 8775-8776 of 2016 delivered as recently as on February 7, 2022 held that once it is established that fraud or any wrongful act was perpetrated by an employee of a post/bank office during the course of their employment, the post/bank office would be vicariously liable for the wrongful act of such employee. The Supreme Court clarified that the post office is entitled to proceed against the concerned officer, but the same would not absolve them from their liability.
In their W.V and written notes of argument the opposite party stated as under
“previously the meter (no 7S1329621) was installed at the premises of Poritosh Debnath having consumer ID- 422046913. The SAID METER WAS FOUND DEFECTIVE and was REPLACED as per norms of WBSEDCL on Sept 2017. The new meter no is GO1821070. But it was REPLACED WITH A WRONG METER NUMBER IN THE CONSUMER DATABASE”
“thereafter RECTIFIED THE AFORESAID LACUNAE as per the direction of the consumer Affairs Dept”
“Thereafter there WAS AN ERROR FROM THE METER READER during quarterly reading”
“there had been a LAPSE FROM THE PART OF METER READER who is an employee of NGO”
During the trial the O.P installed check meter in the premises to see the actual position of the existing meter on 20.3.23 and on 20.4 23 the meter was found without any fault. But, the O.P suppress the matter that in this one month period the electrical consumption of the complainant was only 25 unites.
O.P never explain the fact that when they handed over a bill to the complainant of Rs.638.12/- for the period May to July 2019, but while payment complainant paid an amount of Rs.1025/- which was received by them?
We have gone through the records and other related documents of the case and have come to conclusion that the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 would be liable for the contributory negligence. They have no control over their meter reader who is an employee of NGO absolutely engaged by them. From the case record it can be revels that the vocabularies LACUNA, MISTAKE, ERROR, and WRONG etc are used by the opposite party only. From the beginning when the opposite parties found that they have made the mistake “METER WAS FOUND DEFECTIVE” “WRONG METER NUMBER IN THE CONSUMER DATABASE” they never took any initiative after receiving direction from the Assistant Director， Directorate of Consumer Affairs and Fair Businesses Practices, Regional office, Jalpaiguri, West Bengal. We think O.Ps are trying throw the outcome of their deficiency in services and unfair trade practice upon the complainant.
In view of the above discussion we may come to the conclusion that the O.P.No-1&2 are jointly guilty for deficiency in services and the service provided by the other O.P.s were not up to the mark (Unfair trade).
Therefore, the complainant is entitled to the relief as specified bellow.
All points are disposed of. In the result the case of the complainant/ application succeeds.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
We allow the consumer case by issuing the following directions
Opposite Party No. 1&2 are directed to hand over an up-to-date outstanding electric bill to the complainant by deducting Rs. 43.946.64/- from the total up-to-date outstanding electric bill of the complainant. Complainant will deposit the same in four equal installments or at a time.
The complainant is entitled to get compensation for his mental pain and agony of Rs. 20,000/- (twenty thousand only) and Rs. 10000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) as litigation cost from O.P-1&2.
The order should be comply within 30 (Thirty) days from the date of this order failing which the complainant will be at liberty to put the order in execution according to provision of law.
Let a copy of this judgment be given to the parties free of cost.
