Date of Filing – 11.08.2017
Date of Hearing – 05.01.2018
The instant appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) is at the behest of the Complainant to impeach the Judgement/Final Order dated 22.06.2017 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bankura (for short, Ld. District Forum) in Consumer Complaint No. 129/2015 whereby the complaint lodged by the Appellant U/s 12 of the Act was dismissed exparte without any order as to costs.
The Appellant herein being Complainant lodged the complaint before the Ld. District Forum asserting that she being a resident of Vill – Katjuridanga Sarat Pally, Lane No. – 3, P.O – Kanduadihi, P.S + Dist - Bankura is a consumer of West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (WBSEDCL) having consumer ID No. – 232007873 and has been paying charges of electricity according to meter reading regularly. In March, 2013 she came to know that the meter is showing reading of 21296 units. The Complainant reported the matter to the O.P . but the O.P. without replacing the said meter by a new meter continue in sending electric bills on the basis of average consumption. On 21.07.2015 the O.P. replaced the said defective meter by a new one being No. B 3323872 and sending the electric bills mentioning estimated adjustment unit 1535. All on a sudden on 05.11.2015 the service connection of the Complainant was disconnected without giving any notice. The Complainant alleged that the ordinary consumption is 300 units and the bill amount raised by bill dated 06.11.2015 was excessive. Hence the Complainant lodged the complaint before the Ld. District Forum challenging the disputed bill for the month of September 2015 to November 2015, compensation of Rs. 15,40,000/- and litigation costs etc.
The Respondent being O.P. initially appeared through the Advocate but subsequently did not contest. Under compulsion, the complaint was proceeded exparte.
After assessing the materials on record, the Ld. District Forum by the impugned Judgement/Final Order dismissed the complaint with an observation that there was no cause of action in filing the complaint. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said Judgement/Final Order, the Complainant has come up in this Commission with the present appeal.
Having heard the Ld. Advocates appearing for the parties and on having a look to the materials on record, it would reveal that the Appellant being a consumer having consumer ID No. 232007873 was enjoying electricity at her premises lying and situated at Vill – Katjuridanga Sarat Pally, Lane No. – 3 P.O – Kanduadihi, P.S + Dist – Bankura.
Apparently, it was a billing dispute in respect of bill for the month of September, 2015 to November 2015. It may be pertinent to record that the Appellant has already paid the amount of the said bill without challenging the correctness of the same before the Regional Grievance Redressal Officer or Central Grievance Redressal Officer of WBSEDCL as per the regulation No. 3.5 of WBERC No. 55 dated 07.08.2013. It is well settled that in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported (2013) 8 SCC 491[U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. –Vs. – Anis Ahmed] the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 runs parallel for giving redressal to any person, who falls within the meaning of ‘consumer’ as defined in Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act but it is limited to the dispute relating to ‘unfair trade practice’ or a ‘restrictive trade practice’ adopted by the service provider or if the ‘consumer’ suffers from deficiency in service or hazardous service or the service provider has charged a price in excess of the price fixed by or under any law.
Now, the Regulation No.3.5 of West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission published in Kolkata Gazette (Extra-Ordinary) dated 07.08.2013 being notification No. 55, which has a statutory effect provides –
“3.5.1(a) – In case, there is any dispute in respect of the billed amount, the consumer may lodged a complaint with the Grievance Redressal Officer or the Central Grievance Redressal Officer of the licensee and thereafter to the Ombudsman in appeal against the order of the Grievance Redressal Officer or the Central Grievance Redressal Officer, 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 him 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 of electricity paid by him during the preceding 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 on provisional basis”.
The provisions of Regulation 3.5.2 reads as under:-
“3.5.2. If any agreed consumer makes a provisional payment, as aforesaid, no penal measure including disconnection for non-payment shall be taken against him till the dispute is settled either at the level of the Grievance Redressal Officer or the Central Grievance Redressal Officer or the Ombudsman, as the case may be. However, imposition of a delayed payment, surcharge, if applicable shall not count towards a penal measure for this purpose”.
The most important aspect of the matter is that the Appellant did not take any pain to file any application for appointment of an expert of electrical engineer from any reputed Engineering College to prove that the alleged bill was excessive and wrongly recorded. There is no machinery before a Forum constituted under the Act to ascertain as to correctness of bill in question. The Appellant in their Petition of Complaint did not make any prayer for inspection of meter through any expert to ascertain its correctness. The Appellant in order to prove the alleged deficiency on the part of the WBSEDCL could have made a prayer for appointment of an expert to determine the correctness of the meter in question.
Therefore, despite opportunity when the Appellant without trying to prove that the alleged reading of bill for the month of September, 2015 to November 2015 paid the amount of said bill, question of alleged deficiency on the part of Respondent does not arise.
Consequently, when it is found that there was no deficiency on the part of the Respondent, the Ld. District Forum has rightly observed there was no cause of action in filing the complaint. As a result, question of imposing compensation for harassment and mental agony as argued by Ms. Suman Sehanabis, Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has lost its force.
Considering the above, the appeal is dismissed on contest. There will be no order as to costs.
The impugned judgement / final order is hereby affirmed.
The Registrar of the Commission is directed to send a copy of this order to the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bankura for information.
