Hon'ble Mrs. Rumpa Mandal, Member.
The case of the Complainant, in a nut shell, is that he had established a Husking Mill for his self employment to earn his livelihood in his premises. He obtained electric connection for running the said Mill from the O.Ps. It is alleged that all of a sudden his electric connection was disconnected by O.Ps because of non-payment of partly amount of Rs.10,000/- out of Rs.33,747/- bill date 03.09.15 for the period from January,2014 to April,2014, June,2014 to July,2014. Complainant stated in his complaint petition that previous meter reading i.e. 22431 and present meter reading i.e. 22431 is same so the unit consumed zero zero unit but the bill amount Rs.33,747/-. After issuing the bill the Complainant wanted to know from the end of the complaint authority. The complaint authority advised him to deposit of Rs.10,000/- immediately. On 12.09.16 Complainant deposited the said ten thousand rupees. Then O.Ps further arranged for electricity connection and Complainant again started his business with said mill to manage his livelihood having electric connection. It is further alleged that Complainant submitted a written complaint to O.P. No.2 on 15.09.2016 that the electricity meter did not tally the meter reading physically at all so the bill had been issued with high amount of Rs.33,747/- against 22431 units and even no slab benefit was offered. It is alleged that whole of the matter absolutely illegal. It is further alleged that an Officer of the Electricity Department came at Complainant’s business point and further disconnected the electricity without any notice. Thereafter on 16.01.17 O.Ps issued a rectified electric bill amounting to Rs.25,406/- and payment amount of Rs.10,369/- only against 19213 units in lieu of unit 22431. But the O.Ps did not provide slab benefit of the alleged bill. He failed to understand how the said bill come. So he filed this case praying for several reliefs for rectifying the bill on the basis of actual consumption and compensation etc.
The OP contested the case by filing written version. In the written version, the O.P. No.1 contended that the Complainant got the electric connection for his Husking Mill which was required for industrial electricity connection. They denied that the Complainant was running his business for self employment to earn his livelihood. Due to door lock no additional units were claimed from the Complainant in the bill date 03.09.15. Only outstanding bill for the month of January,2014 to April,2014 and June,2014 to July,2015 was claimed by OP alongwith minimum charge of Rs.544.55 alongwith Rs.33,207/- as outstanding. The O.P. No.1 further alleged that Complainant was habitual defaulter in the event of payment of electric bill and till dated Rs.10,563/- is lying outstanding as electric bill. That apart O.P. No.1 further alleged that as door lock notice was sent by Complainant on 18.08.15 so no reading could be taken in that month and the bill was prepared showing previous and present reading 22431 units. There was no irregularity or abnormality in the claimed electric bill dated 03.09.15 and 16.01.17. So, the O.P. No.1 prayed for dismissal of this case. No written version on behalf of the O.P. No.2 was filed and the case was heard ex-parte against him.
The pleadings of the parties led this Commission to determine the following points for determination to ascertain the real question in controversy.
POINTS FOR DETERMINATION
- Is the case maintainable in its present form and prayer?
- Whether the bill is inflated or not?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for?
- To what other relief/ and or reliefs if any, is the Complainant entitled to get?
DECISIONS WITH REASONS
POINT NO.1.
The present point relates to the question as to whether the Complainant is a consumer and the disputes within the perview of the CP Act which are the basic things to the maintainability of the case. The Complainant appears to have met for correction of electric bill to the OP.
The OP did not challenge the status of the consumer or that the dispute between them is covered under CP Act.
It appears that Complainant had Husking Mill and also admittedly he got electric connection from the O.Ps for running the said Mill. According to the complaint, he set up Husking Mill for his self employment to earn his livelihood. The electric connection in respect of the said Husking Mill was for industrial purpose as contended by O.P. No.1 and this was not denied by the Complainant. It is claimed that he is an unemployed youth and his business was for earning his livelihood and from the evidence filed on behalf of the Complainant, he introduced himself to be a person aged about 62 years and his profession was self employment. The Complainant stated that he had no other source of income. So his claim that he is an unemployed person and running the Husking Mill for self employment is proper and justified. Any person who is unemployed can maintain his livelihood by running his business.
It also appears that the OP stated that the Complainant did not fulfil the certain conditions regarding electric bill. But Complainant approached to the OP for correction of bill. From the evidence filed by the Complainant it is clear that the Complainant paid Rs.10,000/- on 12.09.16. Thus, the transaction between the Complainant and the OP appears to have brought them within the purview of the CP Act.
Accordingly, having perused the pleadings of the parties and the evidence on record I am of the view that the present case is maintainable in its present form and nature.
Accordingly, the Point No.1 is in favour of the Complainant.
POINT NO.2 & 3.
The present points relate to the entitlement of relief by the Complaint. On behalf of the Complainant, it has been argued that Complainant has shown the monthly electric inflated bill for the month of January, 2014 to April, 2014 and June, 2014 to July, 2015. The said bill dated 03.09.15 of Rs.33,747/- issued by OP and thereafter informed to OP and OP issued another bill Rs.10,176/- dated 16.01.17 month of the bill June, 2014. On 12.09.16 Complainant made payment to OP Rs.10,000/-.
On the other hand, on behalf of the OP it has been argued that the bill date 03.09.15 due to door lock no additional units were claimed from the Complainant, only outstanding bill for the month of January, 2014 to April, 2014 and June, 2014 to July, 2015 was claimed alongwith minimum charge of Rs.544.55.
After considering all the documents and evidence it is found that in order to establish that, whether the bill is inflated or not, the Complainant did not produce any previous bill. So, this Commission draws the inference that due to door lock only outstanding bill for the month of January, 2014 to April ,2014 and June, 2014 to July, 2015 was claimed by OP bill dated 03.09.2015. OP also argued that after adjusting from the security deposit of money Rs.11,201.78/-, Complainant deposited to OP on 27.01.17. After making all adjustment OP claimed of Rs.10,369/- from the Complainant after providing slab benefit and other benefits.
In the evidence in chief and in their argument, Complainant did not submit any previous bill in this connection. So the OP’s claim about the amount of the said bill is proper.
On the other hand, on behalf of the OP that the claim was justified and proper. More so, Complainant was a habitual defaulter in the event of payment of electric bill and the Complainant was not accessible during long period for which several door lock notice was sent to him. So the monthly bill was prepared on the basis of average consumption for the last 6 months or consumption of similar period of last years as per clause 3.7 of WBERC for a long period. As the bill was rectified there was no negligence on the part of the OP.
That apart, much emphasis has been given on behalf of the OP that Complainant by passed the statutory mechanism of the OP for Redressal of grievance. In support of the said contention on behalf of the OP, one decision of Hon’ble State Commission in Station Manager, WBSEDCL Vs Sri Sankar Prasad Chatterjee in his First Appeal West Bengal has been cited. It was held in that decision that:-
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) dated 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 and thereafter 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 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 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 on 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 clause3.5 of notification NO.55 WBSEDCL dated 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 dated 15.09.16 it was so stated. Apart from this no communication has been made by the Complainant before this OP. Afresh bill was issued by OP. If there was any ambiguity the Complainant should have preferred to lodge complaint with the grievance Redressal Officer of the OP for settlement of his dispute.
So following the discussion referred to by the Complainant the statutory provision and in the light of the observations made herein above we are of the considered view that the Complainant failed to prove the case up to the hilt. Accordingly, we hold that the instant complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Hence, it is
Ordered
That the instant case be and the same is dismissed on contest without cost.
Let a 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.
Dictated and corrected by me.
