18.06.2015
JAGANNATH BAG, MEMBER
The present appeal is directed against the order dated 29.01.2014 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hooghly, in Case No. 85 of 2012 , whereby the complaint was dismissed as found to be not maintainable under law.
The Complainant’s case, in brief, was as follows:
The Complainant availed electricity service for a long time as a consumer under the OP No.1. On15.08.2011, the OP changed the old meter, though there was no demand or application for such change of meter. The Complainant got the first bill according to the reading of the new meter showing the previous reading as zero and the recorded reading as 2946 and the billed amount was Rs.20,216 /- payable for 3 months. The previous bills were never above Rs.500/- per month. So, the bill of Rs.20,216/- appeared to be abnormal and that might have happened because of the fact that the initial reading of the new meter was something other than‘0’.The Complainant sent objection to the Divisional Manager, Serampore Division of the OP company and after that she also sent notice through her Advocate for correction of the said bill. But no reply being sent by the OP, the complaint petition praying for relief against the arbitrary act of the WBSEDCL was filed .
The complaint has been contested by the OPs who filed written version denying all material allegations and contending, inter alia, that the case was not maintainable in law or in fact. It was stated that as per decision of the OP company all conventional meters were to be changed by static meters. Accordingly, the old conventional meter of the Complainant was replaced by a new meter. It was also contended that as per application of the petitioner for checking of the new meter , the technical experts of the O.P. checked the meter on 11.11.2011 and found no fault in the meter . All the checking was done in the presence of the Complainant. Moreover, OPs tried to communicate with the Complainant through their letter No.DES/763 dated 23.12.2011 which was refused by the Complainant. Then, OPs sent a letter 30.01.2012 through registered post with A/D. The bill in question being raised on actual consumption as recorded in the meter , there was no deficiency in service on their part and as payment has not been made , the OP got the right to disconnect the service on ground of non-payment of bill.
Ld. Forum below observed that the Complainant filed the case for getting relief from payment of excess bill amount of Rs. 20,216/-. Ld. Forum below, upon careful consideration of the materials on record, noted that the case was not a case of deficiency of service but a case of dispute in billing matter. Ld. Forum below, relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in Civil Appeal No. 5466 of 2012, holding that the complaint against assessment under Section 126 of the Electricity Ac 2003, can not be filed before Consumer Forum for redressal. Accordingly, the case was found to be not maintainable and the Complainant was dismissed . Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of the Ld. Forum below the Complainant-turned-Appellant has come up before this Commission with this appeal for setting aside the impugned order for the interest of justice and, inter alia, for direction upon the Ld. Forum below for deciding the matter afresh on merit.
Ld. Advocate appearing for the Appellant submitted that an unusual and unprecedented energy consumption of 2946 units of electricity was recorded only because of the faulty meter installed by the Respondents on 15.08.2011. There was no occasion earlier showing such abnormal consumption of electricity through the old meter. The new meter was no doubt defective in nature that gave rise to an unusual meter reading. The Respondents never came up with any evidence before the Ld. Forum below that the Complainant/Appellant indulged in any unauthorized use of electricity or use of high voltage gadgets. No allegation whatsoever was brought up any time against the Complainant / Appellant in this regard . Furthermore, Ld. Forum below misinterpreted the judgment/order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 5466 of 2012. There being no case of unauthorized use of electricity or theft of electricity, Ld. Forum below should have decided the complaint on the basis of its merit. The impugned order deserves to be set aside with appropriate orders by this Hon’ble Commission.
Ld. Advocate appearing for the Respondents / OPs submitted that a new meter was installed in place of the old meter as per the decision of the appropriate authority and all conventional meters were required to be changed by static meters. Accordingly, the old conventional meter installed in the premises of the Complainant was replaced on 15.08.2011 and after such replacement, one yellow card was handed over to the Complainant/ Appellant showing the initial reading of the new meter as zero. When the meter reader took the reading on 16.10.2011, it was seen that the consumption of electricity was recorded as 2946 units. Accordingly , a bill of Rs. 20,216/- was sent to the consumer for payment . On the application of the Complainant for checking of the new meter, technical experts of the Respondent service provider checked the meter on 11.11.2011 and found that the meter was fault free. This was recorded in the yellow card and everything was done in the presence of the Complainant/ Appellant. The bill was prepared on the basis of the reading on the meter and the Complainant failed to deposit the payment. The Complainant’s grievance is against the bill which the Ld. Forum rightly pointed out and dismissed the same. Dismissal of the complaint was just and proper. The question of setting aside the impugned order does not arise.
The points before us are, whether the impugned order suffers from illegality or jurisdictional error and whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for .
Decision with Reasons
We have gone through the memorandum of appeal together with copies of the impugned order, the petition of complaint , the W.V. filed by OP Nos.1and 2 before the Ld. Forum below and other documents including questionnaire / replies and correspondences between the Complainant / Appellant and the OP / Respondents.
It was stated by the Respondent/OPs that all conventional meters were to be replaced by static meters as per decision of WBSEDCL and accordingly on 15.08.2011 a new meter was installed in the premises of the Complainant / Appellant. The initial reading of the new meter showing zero was allegedly seen by the Complainant, but on 16.10.2011 , the reading of 2946 units in the new meter appeared to be unusual and the resultant bill amounting to Rs.20,216/- was also unusual and exorbitant. The Appellant having sent an application for checking of the new meter, the OPs sent technical experts who checked the meter on 11.11.2011 and found that the meter was alright. Subsequently, as per statement of the Respondent /OP vide their W.V, the ‘reading has been showing normal consumption.’ If according to the Respondent/OPs , the readings prior to the installation of the new meter and also after checking of the new meter at a gap of about 2 months and a few days, normal consumption which is on average of 55 to 60 units , then why and how the meter reading shot up to an abnormal number of 2946 units has not been properly enquired or verified by the service provider being the Respondents herein. It is rather a presumption of the Respondents as stated in paragraph 10 of the W.V. that there may be any leakage or short circuit which might have caused high unit consumption. Such presumption has not been supported by any evidence . It was presumed by the Respondents that the high consumption of electricity might have been caused by light , fan , fridge , inverter , etc. In reply to their question (No.22), the Complainant / Appellant submitted that she had only light, fan and TV in the premises. There was no fridge or inverter or washing machine in her premises. It was incumbent upon the Respondent /OPs to make thorough inspection of the premises for ascertaining as to whether there was any unauthorized use of electricity or theft of electricity. No such attempt or initiative was taken by the Respondent/OP service provider. There appears to have been no proof or evidence about unauthorized use of electricity or theft of electricity by the Complaisant/Appellant. In that situation, Section 126 of the Electricity Act is not attracted and Ld. Forum’s observation that as per provisions of Section 126 of the Indian Electricity Act , the adjudication of the complaint is barred , does not appear to be justified. It was basically a problem in the new meter which the Respondent service provider denied. Whether there was any leakage in the electric line or short circuit was never proved. In that view of the matter , the presumption of the service provider / Respondents cannot be accepted.
Ld. Forum below overlooked the fact of unexplained rise in the meter reading on installation of the new meter. It would be prudent to hold that there was some technical fault in the new meter which after checking by the technical experts of the Respondent service provider might have been rectified. The exorbitant bill of Rs. 20,216/- is not properly explained by the Respondents except giving some presumptive statements only.
We are inclined to hold that the impugned order of the Ld. Forum below suffers from illegality and jurisdictional error. The appeal , in the result, succeeds and the impugned order deserves to be set aside . Hence,
Ordered
That the appeal be and the same is allowed on contest . The impugned order is set aside. The Respondents / OPs shall raise fresh bill in cancellation of the bill for Rs. 20,216/-, on average basis taking into consideration , the bill amounts of 12 months prior to the installation of the new meter. Further, the Respondent service provider shall not indulge in disconnection of the electric line unless a fresh bill, as stated above, is raised and sent to the address of the Appellant / Complainant giving opportunity of payment. There shall be no order as to costs.
