West Bengal

Dakshin Dinajpur

CC/41/2017

Smt. Pampi Sarkar, W/O- Manoj Sarkar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The D.E. & Divisional Manager, Dakshin Dinajpur(D) Division, WBSEDCL - Opp.Party(s)

Samit Bhowmick

17 Nov 2017

ORDER

 

            This complaint u/s 12 of the CP Act, 1986, is filed by the complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of Electricity Department of OP Nos. 1 & 2.

 

            The facts leading to the filing of the instant complaint by the complainant may be epitomized as follows.

 

The complainant is a domestic consumer under the OPs having Service Connection No. is 433134142. She has made payment of all the electric bills all along till June, 2016 without having incurred any default in payment of bills. In the month of June, 2016 the meter got stopped and it is so noted in yellow card of the OP-department. The fact of the meter being stopped was brought to the notice of the OPs, but the old meter was not changed by the OPs. Bills have been so far prepared, therefore, on average consumption basis by the OPs and those bills have also been paid by the complainant. Troubles erupted only when the OPs slapped a bill dt. 2.6.2017 demanding an excessive amount of Rs.41,411.19 from the complainant. In response to the complainant’s protest petition filed before the OPs, the OPs furnished an imaginary logic behind the aforesaid excessive bill. That apart, the OPs have illegally recovered disconnection and reconnection charge from the complainant, although the electric line was never disconnected. Dissatisfied with the above excessive bill the complainant has come up before this Forum with the filing of the instant case, praying for cancellation of the above bill dt. 2.6.2017, issue of a fresh bill without charging LPSC, payment of Rs.50,000/- for mental pain and harassment,

 

 

refund of amount illegally taken as disconnection and reconnection charge and also for litigation cost. Hence, this case.

 

The OPs have been contesting this case by filing written statement wherein it is submitted by them that the complainant is a domestic consumer under them and that she has all along paid the bills regularly until the meter was discovered to have been defective in the month of June, 2016. According to their version, the subject bill has been rightly prepared on the basis of average consumption for the period from 3.3.2015 to 7.6.2015 in accordance with the provision of regulation. There is nothing sort of deficiency in service in raising the subject bill and therefore the case should be dismissed in limini.

 

            Upon the averments of the parties the following points are formulated for proper adjudication of the matter in dispute.

Points for determination

1. Have the OPs committed deficiency in service while issuing the subject bill dt. 2.6.2017 ?

 

2. Have the OPs committed deficiency in service in recovering disconnection and reconnection charge from the complainant?

 

3. Is the complainant entitled to get relief / reliefs, if any, as prayed for?

 

Evidence of the parties

            The complainant has filed a petition praying for treating the very complaint as her affidavit-in-chief and accordingly the complaint is treated as her affidavit-in-chief. The documents filed by complainant are kept in the record vide Page No. 127 to 187. The documents filed on behalf of the OP-department are also kept in the record vide Page No.278 to 284.

 

DECISION  WITH  REASONS

Point Nos. 1, 2 & 3

Ld. Lawyer appearing for the complainant has vehemently submitted that the dispute bills vide Page No.280, is too much exorbitant in comparison with the bills sent to the complainant by the OP-department prior to disputed bill. According to him, all the prior bills from 6.3.2016 to 10.3.2017 (all billing dates) ranged between Rs.477/- to Rs.89 with the highest amount of Rs.2,046/- (vide bill dt.14.12.2016). By the disputed bill, the OP-department has charged the complainant with a demand of Rs.41,411/-, which amount as goes his submission, is absolutely arbitrary and illegal. It is further submitted by him that the OP-department has also realized disconnection charge  Rs.100/- from the complainant on several occasions, i.e. 22.8.2015, 6.10.2015, 8.6.2016, 11.1.2017 and 20.2.2017 although the electric supply of the complainant was never disconnected by the OP-department. Such realization of money illegally from the complainant, as goes his submission, is tantamount to plundering of money from the innocent consumers and all these are certainly not only deficiency in service on the part of OP-department but also a kind of unfair trade practice.

 

Ld. Lawyer appearing for the OP-department has submitted that there arises no question of any illegality or any unfair trade practice in so far as the disputed bill is concerned. According to him, disputed bill (vide Page No.49 or 280) has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of rule 3.8.1 of Notification No.55 of WBERC dt. 7.8.2013, applying load factor to the energy consumption of period immediately preceding the date of inspection of the meter of the complainant.

 

In the context of submission and counter-submission as referred to above, it is to be seen now whether the disputed bill dt. 2.6.2017 is prepared lawfully in terms of Provisions of Electricity Regulation.  According to the version of OP-department, the disputed bill is prepared in compliance of Regulation 3.8.1 of Notification No.55/WBERC. To establish it, one document is also filed by them and the said document bears page mark-283. A perusal of the provisions of the Notification as referred to above, it is found that the Regulation 3.8 deals with Billing in case of unusual variation in meter reading The present case is not a case of unusual variation in meter reading. There is no averment either of the parties to the effect that the meter reading showed unusual variation. Rather, it is the case of the complainant, which is also admitted by the OP-department, that the meter provided to the complainant got stopped. The complainant has filed one photocopy of yellow-card vide Page No.31, from which it is seen that the meter stopped on 6.6.2016. Regard being had to all these admitted position, we feel no difficulty to hold that it is not a case of unusual variation of meter reading, but a case of meter being stopped “or defunct”. This being so, Regulation 3.8.1 seems to be not an appropriate provision to be applicable to this case for the purpose of preparation of bill; the appropriate provision which should be applicable in this case, is Regulation 3.6.1. Regulation 3.6.1 reads thus:

3.6.1 : If, on inspection by the distribution licensee on its own or on the basis of a complaint of a consumer, the meter of a consumer is found defective or defunct for a reason other than theft of electricity as provided in section 135 of the Act and no theft of energy can be reasonably suspected, the consumer shall pay

provisionally, for such consumption of electricity for the period during which the meter has been suspected to have been defective or defunct, on the basis of average consumption and other parameters for the preceding and / or succeeding three months or during any previous and / or subsequent period that may be reasonably comparable before the meter has been found to be defective or defunct. If, however, the period during which the meter has been defective or defunct cannot be ascertained, such period shall be limited to a period of three months immediately preceding the date of inspection.

 

According to the Regulation 3.6.1, the OP-department is, inter alia, required to prepare the bill for the period during which the meter is defunct on the basis of average consumption for the three months immediately preceding the date of inspection. Regulation 3.6.1 does not admit of any application of load factor in calculation of average consumption. The fact of the meter being defunct was discovered by employee of the OP-department on 6.6.2016 and therefore, the bill should be prepared on the basis of consumption of three months immediately preceding the date of inspection i.e. 6.6.2016. A bill was also prepared by the OP-department and a copy of such bill is also filed before us vide Page No.282, which relates to the period from 1.3.2016 to 6.6.2016 and by which a sum of Rs.5,644.37 is charged against the complainant. This bill relates to 3 months immediately preceding the date of inspection and therefore, to say lawfully, this bill should have been accepted by the OP-department for assessment of average consumption for the purpose of preparation of disputed bill in accordance with Regulation 3.6.1.

 

But that is not done by the OP-department; they have adopted a wrong procedure by invoking Regulation 3.8.1 of Regulation.  The disputed bill by which an exorbitant amount is charged upon the complainant appears to be not prepared in accordance with the Regulation and therefore the said bill requires to be cancelled, as it appears to be the brain child of gross deficiency in service on the part of OP-department.

 

Next comes the question whether realization of money as disconnection and reconnection charge from the complainant by the OP-department amounts to deficiency in service or not. Disconnection and reconnection charge is required to be paid by the consumer whenever supply line is reconnected. Reconnection always follows disconnection. No disconnection, no reconnection. It is specific averment of the complainant that he has never incurred any default in payment of electricity bills and that her electric supply line has never been disconnected. Such averment of the complainant has nowhere been specifically denied by the OP-department. The OP-department should have given plausible explanation as to why such disconnection and reconnection charge has been unnecessarily taken from the complainant on several occasions. But, no explanation is coming forth from them. In the circumstances, we feel constrained to hold that the OP-department has unlawfully realized disconnection and reconnection charge from the complainant and they will have to return it.

 

To sum up, issue of electric bill of excessively high amount without adverting to electricity regulation and illegal realization of disconnection and reconnection charge of several occasions, i.e. on 22.8.2015, 6.10.2015, 8.6.2016 and 11.1.2017 and 20.2.2017

 

from the complainant by the OP-department are gross deficiency in service. These are not only gross deficiency in service but also unfair trade practice to which the innocent consumers have been made scape-goat. Such kind of services has certainly caused and is likely to cause enormous mental paint and harassment to the complainant and the complainant is entitled to get compensation therefor.  

 

 

 

In the result, the case succeeds.

Hence,

                                                O R D E R E D

            that the Consumer Complaint case be and the same is  allowed on contest against the OPs with cost of Rs.2,000/-.

 

            The disputed bill dt. 2.6.2017, vide at Page No.49 or 280 is hereby quashed being arbitrary and illegal and the OPs are directed to prepare a bill afresh for the period from 3.3.2017 to 31.5.2017 solely on the basis of average consumption, relying on the bill dt. 14.6.2016 (vide Page No.282) in accordance with Regulation 3.6.1 of Regulation and to hand over the same to the complainant to make payment within 15 (fifteen) days thereof without charging any kind of LPSC upon that bill period. The OPs are also directed to refund Rs.500/- to the complainant. They would also pay Rs. 15,000/- as compensation to the complainant for mental pain and agony, caused by deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The compensation money, litigation cost and the refund money i.e. Rs.500/- are to be paid to the complainant within a month of this order, failing which the compensation amount and the refund amount will bear interest  10% p.a. until full realization.

 

            Let a plain copy of this order be furnished to the parties concerned forthwith free of cost.