Date of filing : 15.04.2016

Date of hearing : 16.05.2017

       The instant appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ( for brevity, “the Act “) is at the instance of Opposite Parties  is to challenge  the judgement /final order dated 08.03.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, North 24 – Parganas at Barasat ( in short, Ld. District Forum ) in Consumer Complaint No. 640/2015. By the impugned order, the Ld. District  Forum allowed the complaint lodged by the respondent Shri Subrata Chandra Pandit U/s. 12 of the Act with certain directions upon the appellants to rectify  the bill of Rs.20,024/- from  10.10.2014 to 04.01.2015 within one month and, to pay Rs. 4,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1000/- as litigation cost etc.

              The  respondent herein being complainant initiated the complaint asserting that he is a consumer of W B State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. ( WBSEDCL ) being Consumer I D. No. 101000058. On 25.07.2014, he noticed that the electric meter was running abnormally. Immediately, he lodged a docket over telephone. However, the OP No.1 sent a  bill 04/07/2014 to  10/10/2014 against defective meter on 84 unit total amount of  397 only and again a bill from  10/10/2014 to 04/01/2015 of 2408 unit amounting to Rs.20,024/- was sent but according to the complainant he consumed only  71 unit. Hence, the  respondent approached the Ld. District Forum with prayer for certain reliefs, viz – (a) A decree of permanent injunction restraining the OPs not to disconnect the electric connection without due process of law ; (b) rectification of bill of Rs. 20,024/- from 10/10/2014 to 04/01/2015; (c) compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/- and (d) litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/-.

       The appellants  being OPs by filing a written version disputed the claim of the complainant stating that on  receiving the order dated 03.09.2012 passed by the District Forum, a check  meter being No.L0565701 was installed besides the existing meter no.T1608597 and on checking it was found that the existing meter is working in a good running condition and the impugned bill is correct.

       On evaluation of materials on record and after hearing both sides, the Ld. District Forum by the impugned judgement /final order allowed the complaint with  the directions upon the appellants/OPs as indicated above. Challenging the legality and correctness of the said order, the OPs have come up in this  Commission with the present appeal.

       Ld. Advocate for the appellants has submitted that the meter  was found correct and challenging  the correctness of meter reading, the respondent moved before the Regional Redressal Grievances Officer, 24-Parganas (N) Region and by a reasoned  order the said complaint was disposed of and as such when  the said order has not been challenged in any upper Forum, the Ld. District Forum ought to have dismissed the complaint.  

       On the other hand, Ld. Advocate for the respondent contended that  the bill raised by  the WBSEDCL for the period from 10/10/2014 to 04/01/2015 showing  2408 units and a bill of Rs.20,024/- is highly exorbitant and as such the Ld. District Forum rightly passed an order directing  the distribution licensee to rectify the bill.

       The fact remains  that after filing of the complaint, the respondent/complainant moved an application U/s. 13(3B) of the Act and on the prayer of the respondent and  on the basis of the order dated 03.09.2012 a check meter no.L0565701 was installed besides  the existing meter no.T1608597 and on checking , it  was found that the existing meter was working in a good running condition and  the billing question is correct.

       It is evident that the respondent did not place before the Ld. District Forum about lodging of complaint by him before RGRO, North 24-Parganas Region and by  an  order, the said complaint was disposed of. It was observed that as per Regulation 36 of W B Electricity Regulatory Commission with 3.8.2 it is clarified that if unusual consumption does not continue in the next billing cycle, the consumer shall be charged for the actual consumption for both the billing cycle adjusting the provisional amount already paid. So, the complainant is directed to pay the bills which was claimed by the concerned CCC as per Regulation.

       The respondent did not comply with the said order. The respondent has also not made any prayer before the Ld. District Forum for appointment any expert to inspect the meter in question to ascertain whether the meter reading was correct or not. In fact, the respondent suppressed the material fact and did not annex  the order passed by RGRO with reference to the present dispute. In AIR 1994 SC 853 (S. P. Chengalvaraya Naidu ( dead) by LRs –vs. – Jagannath (dead) by LRs and Ors.) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that a person, who suppressed the  material fact and withhold the document relevant  to the litigation should be thrown out at any stage of the litigation.

       Having heard the Ld. Advocates for the respect parties, I find that  the Ld. District Forum has totally failed to appreciate  the actual situation for suppression of material facts. In other words,  the respondent did not approached the Ld. District Forum with clean hands.

       For the reasons stated above, the appeal is allowed on contest. However, there will be no order as to costs.

       The impugned judgement/final order is hereby set aside.

       Consequently, CC/640/2015 stands dismissed.

       The Registrar of the Commission is directed to send a copy of this order to the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, North 24 Parganas at Barasat for information.