Date of Filing : 07.04.2016 Date of Final Order : 08.09.2017
Sri Asish Kumar Senapati, President
This is a complaint u/s 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
The gist of the complaint case is as follows :-
The Complainant is an institution (Baishguri High School) is a consumer of electricity and the OP No.1 and 2 are the service providers of electricity. It is the version of the Complainant that the Complainant used to make payment of electricity charges as per bills supplied by the OP No.1 according to consumption. The Ops are not regular in recording the Meter-reading of the Complainant, the reasons best known to them. The Complainant received one bill for the months of March, April and May, 2015 amounting to Rs.637/- and paid the said bill on 28.05.15. Subsequently, it received another bill for the months of June, July and August, 2015 claiming Rs.65,107/- for consumption of 6827 units. The Ops did not visit to the school premises to take Meter-reading from November, 2003 to March, 2016 as per norms but they only visited 6 times in lieu of 49 times during the said period. The Complainant informed its grievance to the OP No.1 but it did not pay any heed and sent another bill for the months of September to November, 2015 amounting to Rs.3,998/- and there was no mention of any outstanding dues. So, the Complainant paid the said bill on 15.09.15. Ultimately, the Complainant received a bill from the OP No.1 for the months of March, 2016 to May, 2016 claiming 67,527/- as outstanding dues without rectifying the earlier bills by giving slab benefits to the Complainant. The Complainant approached the OP No.1 and 2 to resolve the matter but of no result and OP No.1 issued a notice dated 11.03.17 under Section 56(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003 which was served to the Complainant on 18.03.16 with a threat of disconnection of electricity for non-payment. The bills for the period from June, 15 to August, 15 were excessive, unjust and improper. The Complainant filed two applications before the Ops on 21.03.16 and 02.04.16 and also submitted written complaint before the Assistant Director, Consumer Affairs and Fair Business Practices, Cooch Behar 0n 22.03.16 for redress but of no result. The disconnection of electricity had affected the study of the students causing hardship, mental pain and sufferings of the Complainant due to deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. It prayed for direction upon OPs for restoration of electric connection allowing installments and slab benefits for the bills since June, 15, Rs.10,000/- for deficiency in service, Rs.15,000/- for mental pain and agony and Rs.5,000/- for litigation cost.
The OP No.1 put its appearance through its Ld. Agent Sri Dhrubajyoti Karmaker on 02.05.16 and w/v was filed on 14.09.16 inter-alia denying the material allegations made out in the complaint application contending that the application is not maintainable and the Complainant has no cause of action and it is liable to be dismissed u/s 20 of CP Act. It was asserted that the outstanding bill for Rs.63,670/- was proper on the basis of consumption of electricity by the Complainant and OP No.1 issued notice for disconnection under Section 56(1) of Electricity Act, 2003 on 11.03.16. It was also asserted that the electric bills for the period from June,2010 to May, 2014 were proper on estimation due to inaccessibility of the electric Meter of the Complainant and the recurring units had accumulated resulting claim of Rs.65,107/-. The Complainant prayed for installments to liquidate the bill though the Complainant paid the energy bill for the period from September, 15 to November, 15 amounting to Rs.4,000/- on 15.09.15 but the bill for the period from December 15 to February, 16 was not paid by the Complainant. The notice for disconnection was received by the Complainant on 18.03.16 and disconnection of electricity was done on 26.03.16. The OP No.1 has already re-generated a bill by adjusting 1380 units (disputed) during the period from June, 2010 to May, 2014 by deducting Rs.4000/- paid by the Complainant and claimed only Rs.50,669/- after providing proper slab benefits and the said bill had duly been received by the Complainant on or after 02.04.16. The OP had no negligence and deficiency in service towards the Complainant and the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief.
The OP No.2 did not file w/v. Accordingly, the case was proceeded ex-parte against the OP No.2 vide order dated 03.08.2016.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the Complainant Consumer as per provision under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?
- Has the O.P any deficiency in service, as alleged by the Complainant?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get any relief/reliefs, as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point No.1 & 2
Both the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience.
The Ld. Agent for the Complainant submits that he is a consumer of electricity under the Ops on payment of electric charges and the Ops have their offices within local limit of this Forum. He also submits that the claim amount is also within the pecuniary limit of this Forum. The Ld. Agent for the OP No.1 submits that there is no deficiency in service and there is no consumer dispute between the Complainant and the Op, so the case is not maintainable.
On perusal of the complaint petition, w/v and on a careful consideration of the submission of both sides, we are of the view that the Complainant is a consumer under the Ops under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986 and this Forum has both territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
Point No.3 & 4.
The Ld. Agent for the Complainant submits that on the date of hearing of admission on 07.04.2016, this Forum directed the Ops to restore electric connection in the said school and the OPs complied the said interim order. He further submits that it is the duty of the Ops to record Meter reading on certain intervals, so that the consumers may not suffer from enjoying slab benefits but in the present case, the Ops issued a bill for the months of June, July and August, 2015 depriving the Complainant to get slab benefits due to fault of the Ops. He submits that the Complainant has nothing to say, if the Complainant gets slab benefit and installment for making payment of the outstanding bill and the Ops should be penalized for deficiency in service as the Ops disconnected the electricity within 15 days from the date of service of notice for disconnection which is barred under the existing rules. The Complainant prays for allowing compensation for deficiency in service of the Ops and cost of litigation against the Ops.
In reply, the Ld. Agent for the OP No.1 submits that notice for disconnection of electricity dated 11.03.16 was computer generated and the disconnection was made on 26.03.16 i.e. after 15 days’ clear notice. He fairly submits that rule prescribed for 15 days’ clear notice and the documents submitted by the Complainant (Annexure F) revealed that notice was issued by post on 17.03.16 but disconnection was made done on 26.03.13 which is not in consonance of existing rules of notice for disconnection. He further submits that the OP No.1 has already regenerated a bill dated 14.03.16 giving slab benefits to the Complainant, for which Rs.4,000.34 has already been deducted from the total amount. He also argues that he has already submitted a comparative chart showing the amount of consumption of electricity by the Complainant and how the slab benefits have been given (Annexure…..). He submits that the Ops may be exempted from giving any compensation due to deficiency in service.
Admittedly, the Complainant is a consumer of electricity under the Ops vide Customer ID No.424113800 for a long period. Admittedly, the OP No.1 sent a bill claiming huge amount without any basis of periodical Meter reading. Admittedly, the notice for disconnection of electricity was issued on 11.03.16 (Annexure F) and it was sent by post on 17.03.16. Admittedly, the disconnection of electricity was made on 26.03.16 by violating the rule of 15 days’ clear notice of WBSEDCL. It is apparent from order dated 07.04.16 that this Forum directed the Ops to restore the electric connection at once and it is the version of both sides that the Ops complied the said order. Admittedly, the OP No.1 has already regenerated the disputed bill giving the slab benefits vide Invoice No.660000013974 dated 14.03.16 and it is the version of both the parties that the Complainant has not yet paid up the electric bill. The OP No.1 has also submitted a chart showing how the OP No.1 gave slab benefit to the Complainant but the Ops had disconnected the electricity of the Complainant by violating the mandatory provision of the WBSEDCL. So, we have no hesitation to hold that Ops have deficiency in service.
In our considered view, the Ops may be directed to pay Rs.1,000/- for deficiency in service and Rs.1,000/- for cost of litigation to the Complainant.
The Complainant prayed for installments to make payment. It is not within the domain of this Forum to allow installments to make payment of bills but the Ld Agent for the O.P. No. 1 fairly submits that the O.P. No. 1 has agreed to allow five monthly installments. Hence, we are of the view that the Complainant may be allowed to pay the entire electricity dues by five equal monthly installments on the basis of the regenerated bill which will be prepared by the OP No.1 by giving slab benefits and without imposing any late payment surcharge. We are also of the view that the Complainant should start making payment of installments on receipt of newly regenerated bill from the OP No.1.
Reasons for delay : The case was admitted on 7.4.16 and the O.P. No. 1 filed W/V on 14.09.16 . This Forum has taken endeavor to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of Section 13(3A) of the C.P. Act, 1986 and day to day orders will speak for itself.
In the result, the complaint case succeeds.
Fees paid are correct.
Hence,
It is Ordered,
That the Complaint Case be and the same is hereby allowed on contest against O.P. No.1 and Ex-parte against O.P. No.2 with cost of Rs.1,000/-.
The Ops are directed to pay Rs.1,000/- for deficiency in service and Rs.1,000/- for cost of litigation to the Complainant by 45 days from the date of this order.
The O.Ps are directed to regenerate the disputed bill of the Complainant within 45 days by giving slab benefits and without imposing any late payment surcharge by allowing five monthly installments to the Complainant.
Let a copy of the final order be made available and be supplied free of cost to the concerned party/Ld. Advocate by hand/Registered Post with A/D forthwith for information and necessary action as per Rules. The copy of this Final order will also be available in the following website :
confonet.nic.in
Dictated and corrected by me.
