Hon'ble Mrs. Rumpa Mandal, Member.
The case of complainant in a nutshell is that the complainant is the proprietor of Roy Fuel service station for his self employment to earn his livelihood vide consumer ID No 424115341 which is installed by Op i.e W.B.S.E.D.C.L. The Complainant being the Proprietor of the RaJ Fuel Service station is maintaining his livelihood by running the said business. The main allegation is against the O.P. regarding inflated electric bill for the month Jan.2016 to March 2016 & and its consumption period is Oct.2015 to Dec.2015 amounting to Rs.1,198, 197/ with consumption unit 19914/-. It is the allegation of the Complainant that the complainant has been paying electric bill regularly. An absurd bill amounting to Rs.1,98,197/- has been received by the complainant. The Complainant had filed a petition before the station Manager, of WBSEDCL in Mathabhanga on 05.08.16. but the authority did not pay any heed to rectify the bill of the complainant. But W.B.S.E.D.C.L. in response to the said letter, sent another bill amounting to Rs.1,82,708/- ( Bill date 13.09.2016 on 22.11.16 one money receipt showed that the complaint had paid Rs.50,000/-.
Complainant i.e Raj Fuel Service Station re-presented by its proprietor Sri. Rabindra Nath Roy Barman of Chhitkibari, P.O-Nishigang, P.S- Mathabhanga, Dist-Cooch behar is a business partner of M/S Fuel Service station with India Oil Corporation Ltd. Proprietor of Raj Fuel Service station signed this agreement. One of the partners of M/S Fuel Service station had taken electricity from W.B.S.E.D.C.L. So he should be considered as consumer of W.B.S.E.D.C.L.
It is alleged that even after the protest lodged with the O.P. by the Complainant the O.P. did nothing to redress his grievance despite repeated reminder and ultimately on 15.12.16 the O.P. went to Fuel Service Station for disconnection but complainant resisted for the disconnection. Thus, the Complainant having aggrieved, approached this commission seeking service reliefs.
The O.P. contested this case by filing their w/v, evidence on affidavit and written argument. The O.P. denied the allegation leveled against them. According to the O.P. if the complainant disputed the bill amount he could have lodged the complainant with the grievance Redressal office on the control grievance Redressal officer of the O.P. and there after to ombudsman in appeal but without doing so the complainant directly approached this commission bypassing the statutory mechanism there of that the O.P. prayed for dismissal of the instant complaint.
No written version on behalf of the O.P. No.2 was filed and the case was heard exparte against him.
After perusal of the pleadings f the parties transpires that the following point are required to be decided.
Points for consideration
- Whether complainant is a consumer under C.P. Act 1986?
- Is the case maintainable in its present form & prayer?
- Whether the complainant is entitle to get any relief as prayed for ?
- To what other relief/and or reliefs. It any, is the complainant entitled to get?
Point No.1.
Both the Complainant & O.P. No. 1 filed their evidence and also written argument. Admittedly, Complainant has a Fuel station and the Complainant is a business partner and holds same consumer ID NO 424115341 and he got electric connection from the O.Ps for running the said Fuel station. According to the Complainant he set up M/S Fuel service Station with another partner i.e complainant for his self employment in respect of the said Fuel station. It is not for commercial purpose as contended be the O.P. No.1. In view of the Commission, any person who is an unemployed youth can run business for his livelihood. Here proprietor or partner is a elf employed to earn his livelihood. So the complainant is a consumer under C.P.Act,1986.
O.P. challenged the status of the complainant as a consumer because the petrol plump runs commercially & it is not covered under the C.P. Act. In this regard he referred to a decision reported in 2017(2) CPR 832 ( NC) wherein it was decided that when the complainant in her hospital had given employment to several persons , it is commercial purpose.
The case law does not apply here because petrol pump is rum here by two partners for the purpose of earning their livelihood. Sometime this pumps are permitted by the control Govt. to run under the self employment scheme .The O.P. Could not file any document to show that the complainant employed any body as an employee of the said pump. There is nothing to show that the complainant runs the petrol pump for commercial purpose.
Another case law cited by O.P. reported in 2016(3) CPR 323(SC) wherein it was decided that a person who buys goods and uses them himself, exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self employment is within the definition of the expression consumer. This case law goes in favour of complainant.
So the point no1 is decided is favour of the Complainant.
Point No.2 & 3.
The present points relate to the entitlement of relief by the complainant on behalf of the complaint, it has been argued that complainant has shown the monthly inflated electric bill for the month of Jan 2016 to March 2016 the said bill dt.01.08.16 of Rs.1,98,197/- issued by the O.P. and thereafter informed O.P. by issuing a letter dt. 05.08.16 if the slab benefit is allowed to him.
Another matter came to the knowledge of the O.P. that another matter is existing inside the office of the pump. Thereafter the O.P. inspected the office of the Fuel service station and issued a fresh bill instead of the previous bill with proper slab benefit on 13.09..16 amounting to Rs.1,82,708/-. Thereafter the complainant paid Rs.50,000/- on 22.11.16 as part payment of the said bill. Annexure E is the money receipt of the O.P. The bill was rectified by the computer generated software system. The billing month shows Jan,15 to March15 instead of Jan,16 to March16.
On the other hand, on behalf of the O.P. it has been argued that after considering the slab benefit with normal and special rebate during the Consumption period of 15.11.2014 to 03.08.16 after deleting all claimed bills during the above mentioned period of claimed 20310 units.
On behalf of the O.P. it is also argued that the claim was justified and proper. O.P. in his evidence in chief mentioned that during the period of Nov. 14 to August 16 the complainant had paid only Rs.14955.69/- so he is paying electric bills irregularly. As the bill was rectified there was no negligence on the O.P. part of the O.P .
That apart much emphasis has been given on behalf of the O.P that complainant bypassed the statutory provision of the OP. for redressal of grievance. In support of the said contention on behalf of the O.P. one decision of Hon’ble state commission in station manager W.B.S.E.D.C.L, Vs Sri Sankar Prasad chat5terjee in his First appeal West Bengal has been cited.
The Pleadings of the parties and the materials on record clearly manifest that the dispute is apparently a billing dispute. For appreciation of the situation, it would be worthwhile to refer clause 3.5 of Notification No 55 of West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission published in Kolkata Gazette( Extra-ordinary) dt. 7th August,2013 appears to be relevant which provides : 3.51(a)-In case, there is any dispute in respect of the bill amount, the consumer may lodge a complaint with the grievance redressal officer or the central grievance redressal officer of the licensee & there after to the ombudsman in appeal in accordance with the provisions of the concerned Regulations. In such a case the aggrieved consumer pending disposal of the dispute, may under protest, pay the lesser amount out of the following two options:-
- An amount equal to the sum claimed from his in the disputed bill or
- An amount equal to the electricity charges due from him for each month calculated on the basis of average charge for electricity paid by him during the proceeding six months.
The amount so calculated provisionally as per clause (ii) above by the licensee and tendered by the consumer shall be accepted by the licensee against that bill provisional basis.
From the aforesaid provisions it stands proved that for the settlement of dispute regarding bill amount statutory provision has been made. The aforesaid provisions of clause 3.5 of Notification No.55/- W.B.E.D.C.L. dt.7th August,2013 flows from the electricity Act,2003 and as such it has a statutory force. Needless to say, if the law prescribes to do certain thing in a particular way or in a particular manner it should be done with the intention of legislature and a court/ Commission has no authority to bypass such legislative command when with reference to the letter dt.5.8.22 a fresh bill was issued by O.P. If there was any ambiguity the complainant should have preferred to lodge complaint with the grievance redressal officer of the O.P. for settlement of his dispute.
So following the decisions referred to by the Complainant the statutory provision and in the light of the observations made here in above we are of the considered view that the complainant failed to prove the case upto the hilt. Accordingly we hold that the instant complainant is liable to be dismissed.
Hence, it is
Ordered
That the instant case be & the same is dismissed on contest without cost.
Let plain copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned by hand/by post forthwith, free of cost for information and necessary action, if any.
The copy of the Final Order is also available in the official Website www.confonet.nic.in.
