Hon’ble Mrs. Rumpa Mandal, Member.
The concise fact of the case of the Complainant in few words is that the Complainant Goutam Dhar applied for electric connection against which he was given connection having consumer No.424053954 vide meter No. ML-385340 for his livelihood for self employment. The Complainant installed electric connection for his rented premises also. The OP, Station Manager, WBSEDCL disconnected the electric connection at the rented premises of the Complainant without giving any prior intimation. Thereafter the Complainant filed written objection on 04.09.14 and after enquiry OP reconnected. Suddenly on 10.10.14 the OP sent electric bill mentioning a new meter No.E-533541 which is not in the name of the Complainant. The meter No. is ML-385340 but the bill was sent for electric meter No.E-533541. Against the said wrong bill the Complainant sent a written complaint to the OP but they did not reply. The OP sent false electric bill in wrong meter number on 23.12.15, 17.03.16, 07.09.16 and 12.12.16. Against those bills the Complainant filed written objection on 15.01.16, 02.04.16, 20.09.16 and 23.12.16 respectively. Complainant has one domestic connection having consumer No.401409196 but the OP whimsically disconnected the said meter on 16.02.19 and after lodging complaint the OP reconnected it. The aforesaid activities of the OP amounts to deficiency in service. After long lapse of time when the OP did not correct the electric bill the Complainant sent legal notice through his Lawyer on 19.02.19 but the OP did not reply to the same. The electric bills dated 21.02.19 for the month of March, April and May, 2019 for Rs.91,194/-, Rs.59/- and Rs.59/- respectively with wrong meter reading is totally false and manipulated, against which the Complainant filed petition to the OP. After long lapse of time OP sent a letter on 30.03.19 wherein they mentioned the actual meter No.Ml-385340. The OP also admitted that the bill will be rectified in August, 2017. However, the OP sent rectified bill on 30.03.19. From the bill dated 17.08.17 which the OP sent alongwith their letter dated 30.03.19 discloses that two electric meters were mentioned vide No. ML385340 and E-533541 but the Complainant possesses only one electric meter No. ML385340 and total calculation of bill dated 17.08.17 is false imaginary and manipulated. The activities of the OP tantamounts to deficiency in service for which the Complainant suffered mental pain and agony. The cause of action for the present case arose on 04.09.14, 15.10.14 and on subsequent dates till 17.03.19 and it is continuing. The Complainant therefore prayed for directing the OP to submit correct electric bill for the year 2014 to 2019 with correct electric meter and actual consumption, further direction to sent correct bills against bill dated 17.08.17 and 21.02.19, to pay Rs.50,000/- towards deficiency in service and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation cost to the Complainant by the OP.
The OP contested the case by filing written version wherein they have denied most of the allegation. The positive defence case is that the connection of the Complainant vide consumer Id. 424053954 is for commercial purpose for shop vide category A (CM-R) which the Complainant let out to other person on rental basis. So it is not for earning his livelihood by self employment. The electric connection of the Complainant was interrupted for one or two days due to default of line which was repaired subsequently. Due to bonafide mistake the electric bill for the period on 08.05.11 to 28.02.17 was sent to the Complainant but the Complainant never made any payment against the said wrong bill. Subsequently, on 17.08.17 the OP rectified the bills with an advice to the Complainant not to pay any of the bills against wrong number it was the mistake on the part of the OP which was not intentional. There are some procedure for rectification of bills. The bills were prepared as per the WBERC guideline and in accordance with law which the Complainant is liable to pay. After receiving the Lawyer notice the OP sent a reply in writing to the Complainant on 30.03.19. The bill dated 21.02.19 was prepared claiming Rs.91310/- out of which Rs.91134.97/- was outstanding for the month of September, 2011 to February, 2012, December, 2017 to May, 2018 and September, 2018 to February, 2019 and Rs.58.48+ 58.48 + 58.48 was claimed for the month of March, April and May, 2019. When the Complainant filed written complaint on 26.02.19 he was properly explained regarding the said bill but he neglected to pay the bill. In the rectified bill the previous reading was shown as 08.05.11 and present reading date is 28.02.17 and the bill month was September, 2011, October, 2011 and November, 2011 but payment due date were mentioned as 28.08.17, 09.10.17 and 26.10.17. Unfortunately the Complainant did not understand the legal logic of the bill of the OP. In the rectified bill no unit were claim against the wrong meter number. There is no negligence in service. In case any dispute in the bill is found the consumer may lodge a complaint with the Grievance Redressal Officer and the consumer has to follow the rules of WBERC. There is no cause of action against the OP. The OP therefore claimed that the case is liable to be dismissed with cost.
The question of fact and law involved in the dispute vis-à-vis the respective case of the parties in this case demand for ascertainment of following points for proper adjudication of the case.
POINTS FOR DETERMINATION
- Whether the Complainant is a consumer under the CP Act?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
- To what other relief the Complainant is entitled to get relief?
DECISION WITH RESONS
Point No.1.
The OP challenged the case regarding maintainability thereof on the ground that the Complainant is not a consumer.
It is the admitted position that the Complainant has an electric connection under the OP bearing meter No. ML-385340 consumer Id No. 424053954. The Complainant categorically stated that the said meter for his livelihood for self employment which was installed for letting out premises.
The OP challenged the status of the Complainant that it was for commercial purpose. In fact there is nothing to show in the case record that any commercial activities like production or business is done commercially by the Complainant by which the said premises of the Complainant can be designated as commercial. However the said connection was taken for rented premises for running his livelihood for self employment. After perusing the previous bill of 2008 and 2009 it transpires that the amount of energy charge is 177 units and the amount of bill is less then Rs.700/- and bill par month is not more than Rs.225/-. Thus considering everything the Commission comes to the opinion that the said connection comes within the purview of the C.P. Act under which the Complainant can be considered as a consumer.
Ld. Defence Counsel argued that the Complainant has to prove that it is for self employment.
The Complainant by filing evidence on affidavit stated that the connection was for self employment. The OP did not cross-examine the Complainant nor could they produce any documents to discard the said specific evidence of the Complainant.
Accordingly having perused the pleadings of the parties and the evidence on record the Commission comes to the findings that the Complainant is a consumer under the C.P. Act.
Point No.1 is accordingly decided in favour of the Complainant.
Point Nos.3 & 4.
Both the two points have very close nexus with each other and as such these are taken up together for convenience and brevity of discussion.
The main grievance of the Complainant reveals that the OP company sent eclectic bill on 10.10.14 mentioning a wrong meter No.533541 instead of the actual meter number of the Complainant which is 385340. There is no dispute that the said electric bill was sent in wrong number.
It is the further case of the Complainant that the Complainant lodged written Complainant to the OP against the said mistake on 15.10.14 and on subsequent dates but at no point of time the OP replied to the same. Not only deed the OP remain mum over the said mistake, but also they continued sending electric bill in wrong number on 23.12.15, 17.03.16, 07.09.16 and 12.12.16. The Complainant also lodged written complaint on 15.01.16, 02.04.16, 20.09.16 and 23.12.16 respectively against the said wrong bills.
The Complainant filed all the electric bills in regard to the said wrong bills. The Commission does not find any justification to discuss over that point of wrong bills since the OP has admitted that the bills were sent in wrong meter number but the defence plea is that it is a bonafide mistake which was continued for the period 08.05.11 till 28.02.17.
Another defence plea is that no units were claimed against the wrong meter number which were subsequently deleted and only the units consumption of the existing meter was taken into consideration.
Ld. Advocate for the Complainant argued that the demeanour of the OP in not responding to the grievance of the Complainant tantamounts to deficiency in service.
Ld. Advocate for the Complainant further argued that if an ordinary customer like the Complainant fails to pay electric bill for 7 days then the line would be disconnected but the OP remained inactive over their mistake for 7 years. So they should be directed to compensate the Complainant for the said deficiency in service.
Ld. Advocate for the Complainant in this regard drew the attention of this Commission through Annexure-B which discloses that electric bill was sent in wrong number so the claim of the Complainant is bonafide. The allegation stands strengthened with the other documents like Annexure-A wherein the Complainant informed the OP that he had already paid the previous bill but line was disconnected.
Annexure-C also supports the claim of the Complainant that electric bill was sent in wrong number.
Annexure-D is the electric bill dated 23.12.15 in wrong meter number.
Annexure-E further discloses that the Complainant again lodged complaint on 15.01.16 against the wrong bill and requested for sending correct bill.
Annexure-F is another wrong bill dated 17.03.16 sent to the Complainant against which the Complainant lodged complaint on 02.04.16.
Similarly Annexure-H is the original bill dated 07.09.16 for wrong meter number dated 07.09.16 against which the Complainant lodged written complaint through Annexure-I dated 20.09.16.
Lastly Annexure-J is another bill dated 12.12.16 in wrong meter number against which the Complainant sent complaint on 23.12.16 for issuing correct bill. Finally the Complainant having found no alternative sent legal notice through his Advocate dated 19.12.19 being Annexure-L.
It is the further grievance of the Complainant that the OP whimsically disconnected the connection on 16.02.19 but after complaint it was restored.
The OP could not deny the allegation save and accept the defence plea that it was a bonafide mistake.
The argument of the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant that mistake may continue for few days or months but it cannot run for years together.
The argument is acceptable in as much as “to err is human and to forgive divine” is the philosophy of social activity. But committing mistake and error frequently for about 7 years is not acceptable in the eye of law. From the different document it is found that the Complainant ran from post to pillar for a long period of 7 years for redressal of his grievance.
Ld. Defence Counsel argued that the OP sent revised bill to the Complainant but the Complainant did not reply and ignored the letter. In this regard he drew the attention of the Commission through Annexure-O.
A plain reading of Annexure-O discloses that the said letter was issued by the OP to the Complainant on 21.04.19/30.03.19 wherein it is stated inter alia that the disputed energy bill was regenerated in August, 2017 by providing adequate adjustment of 9332 units. But the Complainant did not show any interest towards payment of outstanding dues.
It is fact that the rectified bill was sent vide Annexure-P alongwith the said letter vide Annexure-O.
The Complainant contended that although the said bill vide Annexure-P was sent but it relates to huge sum of money for the period 2011 to 2017. It would be very much burdensome for the Complainant to pay the entire bill of 7 years at a time and as such the said bill cannot be taken at a time.
The argument has reasonable forced Ld. Defence Counsel argued against the said plea on the ground that the Complainant enjoyed electricity and as such he is bound to pay the electric bill.
After perusing the entire case record and the documents of both the parties it is evident that the electric bill was sent in wrong meter number for long time of about 7 years. Although the Complainant consumed electricity but in view of the fact that due to mistake on the part of the Op the Complainant could not pay the electric bill in due time. So the accumulation of huge amount of electric bill for 7 years would no doubt be burden some for the Complainant to pay it at a time.
Ld. Advocate for the OP referred to a decision reported in 2022 CJ 374 SC wherein it was held that when a person avails a service for a commercial purpose he will have to establish that services were availed exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment.
The said case law does not help the OP in as much as the Complainant here successfully proved that the electricity was consumed for earning his livelihood. The Op also could not prove any document to show that the volume of the consumption of electricity is so high that it should be considered as commercial purpose.
The another unreported decision of First Appeal No. A/1087/2017 is not applicable in as much as in the said decision the dispute was relating to defective meter but in the instant case there is no question as to defective meter.
On the contrary Ld. Advocate for the Complainant referred to a decision reported in Vol.III (2019) CPJ 180(MP) wherein it was held that exorbitant bill raised tantamounts to deficiency in service. Directed to issue fresh bill.
The case law is relied on the ground that it was held in that decision that when no evidence has been filed to prove that the car was purchased for commercial use, benefit of doubt is to be given to the Complainant and he is a consumer.
In a case reported in Vol-II 2020 CPJ 65(NC) referred to by the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant, it was held that disconnection without any notice caused unwarranted inconvenience. So deficiency proved.
The case law is relied on the ground that it was decided by the Hon’ble Commission that hiring of services of insurance company by Complainant who are carrying on commercial activities cannot be held to be commercial purpose. The policy is taken for reimbursement for the loss which may be suffered due to various perils. For the commercial use by the purchaser himself for the purpose of earning livelihood, such purchaser of goods is yet a consumer.
The spirit of said case law is applicable here since the electricity consumed by the Complainant was for earning his livelihood which has been pleaded as well as proved.
Having assessed the evidence of both the parties against the respective case of the parties vis-à-vis observation made in the foregoing paragraphs the Commission comes to the findings that the Complainant is entitled to get some compensation for deficiency in service. Justice would prevail if the Complainant is given an opportunity to pay the arrear electric bill through easy instalment of 8 numbers.
Accordingly the OP shall be entitled to recover the outstanding actual electric bill in 8 instalments without any interest.
Point Nos. 2 & 3 are accordingly decided in favour of the Complainant. In the result the complaint case succeeds on contest with cost.
Hence, it is
Ordered
That the complaint case No. CC/45/2019 be and the same is allowed on contest with cost Rs.5,000/-.
The Complainant do get an award for a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards deficiency in service from the OP and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.
The OP is directed to pay the said sum of Rs.25,000/- to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of passing the Final Order failing which the Complainant shall be entitled to recover the same from the OP with an interest @ 6% per annum from the date of Final Order till the date of final realization.
The OP is further directed to send fresh outstanding electric bills on the basis of actual consumption of the actual meter within 30 days with an opportunity to repay the outstanding bill in 8 equal monthly instalments without any interest against the outstanding electric bill.
D.A. to not in the trial Register.
Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied to the concerned party by hand/by Registered Post with A/D forthwith, free of cost, for information & necessary action as per rule.
The copy of the Final Order is also available in the official website: www.confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me.
