20.04.2016

JAGANNATH BAG, MEMBER

        The present appeal is directed against the Order dated 14.8.14, passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Purulia, in Consumer Complaint No. 05 of 2014, whereby the complaint was allowed on contest against the OP.

          The Complainant’s case, in brief, is as follows:

          The Complainant was provided with a domestic connection and the meter was installed on 10.6.2013 with initial reading of ‘0’ unit. On 16.9.2013 the meter reading was 56 units and the bill was accordingly paid by the Complainant. On 19.12.2013 the meter reading for the period from 16.9.2013 to 18.12.2013 was 80175 units. After receipt of the bill the Complainant lodged a written complaint with the opposite party and requested them to prepare a revised bill after testing the reading of the existing meter as per consumption by check meter. On 11.01.2013 the technical staff of OP visited the premises of the Complainant for inspection of the meter and took the reading as 81009 without, however, installation of any check meter. The meter recorded 80231 units on 18.12.2013 and on 11.01.2014 recorded 81009 units which showed that there was average daily consumption of 31.12 units only. The OP did not prepare revised bill for the period and sent a letter dated 17.01.2014 to the Complainant treating the meter as OK and asked the Complainant to pay the bill amount within 3 days to avoid disconnection of electricity from the premises. The Complainant requested by a letter to consider the disputed bill, but OP did not take any step for issuing a fresh bill as per consumption recorded during the period from 18.12.2013 to 1l.01.2014 and ultimately disconnected the electricity from the premises of the Complainant. The complaint petition was filed praying for direction upon OP to prepare a bill taking average consumption of 32.12 units per day for the period from 16.9.2013 to 18.12.2013 and also for restoration of electricity to the premises of the Complainant apart from payment of compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for harassment and mental pain and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.

          The OP contested the complaint by filing written version. It was asserted that the meter reading was genuine and the Complainant used and enjoyed the electric energy. Though a written complaint was lodged on 10.01.2014, there was no signature of the Complainant in the letter. The OP further submitted that the bill was proper and genuine and the meter was OK as found after enquiry by the technical staff. Accordingly, there was no question for revision of the bill in question and there was no cause of action for the complaint case. The complaint was liable to be dismissed.

          Ld. Forum below compared two consumption records i.e. one for 98 days for the period from 16.09.2013 to 18.12.2013 and the other for 28 days i.e., 18.12.2013 to 11.01.2014 and found that there was a huge difference in  consumption per day recorded by OP. Ld. Forum observed that the OP could not explain their position and the reason for such difference in consumption was not clear. Accordingly, the disputed bill was considered to be erroneous.  On being directed by the Ld. Forum below on 28.3.2014 the OP filed an expert report  dated 24.4.2014 from which it revealed that the energy meter having No. ST 602252 and the connected load of no. 200306679 on 10.6.2013 was 10.76 KVA and on 23.12.2013 was 8.28 KVA as per load survey of the data base from computer against the meter. As per expert report no abnormality was found after disconnection as no consumption shown in the meter and after testing of the meter no abnormality was found. Ld. Forum below further observed that there was no explanation by the expert as to how the load capacity of the meter as per record dated 24.4.2014 varied from the load capacity became as high as 10.76 KVA on 10.6.2013. The report submitted by the expert was found to be not exhaustive and hence not tenable. Ld Forum below also observed that the disputed meter was not tested in laboratory particularly when it was showing a very abnormal figure of consumption to a domestic connection. There was no report as to whether the electric connection provided to the Complainant premises was distributed illegally to other premises. Ld. Forum below also observed that as per Rule 17/ (III) of general condition of power supply if any meter shall give low or high reading of the meter or metering system not functioning properly or reasonability or the meter was deemed to be defective shall be determined by taking  an average consumption and other parameters for the preceding and / or succeeding 3 months consumption or during any previous and /or subsequent period that may be reasonably compared. Deficiency in service on the part of the OP being exposed, the Complainant was entitled to the relief as prayed for. Accordingly, the complaint was allowed. The OP was directed to restore electricity connection to the premises of the Complainant and to revise the bill dated 18.12.2013 taking average consumption of energy and other parameters for the preceding and succeeding 3 months or during any previous and / or subsequent period that may be reasonably comparable and allowed 3 monthly installments to pay the revised bill in terms and conditions of the Electricity Act. The Complainant was also entitled to get a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- for harassment and mental pain and litigation cost of Rs.3,000/- payable within 30 days from the receipt of the order.

          Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of the Ld. Forum below the OP-turned -Appellant has come up before this Commission for direction to set aside the impugned order.

         The Memorandum of Appeal has been filed together with copies of the impugned order, the petition of complaint, the written version filed on behalf of the OP among other documents. Ld. Advocates appearing for both the parties have been heard.

           Ld. Advocate appearing for the Appellant submitted that the Respondent / Complainant failed to pay the bill raised on the basis of meter reading. Though the Respondent Complainant raised objection about the volume of consumption, the technical staff of the Appellant visited the premises of the Respondent/Complainant and checked the meter which was found to be OK. Accordingly, the Bill was raised. Ld. Forum cannot  adjudicate any billing dispute as RGRO is the competent  authority as per Electricity Act, 2003 and Regulations made there under to redress the grievance of the consumers an in case of any dissatisfaction and appeal can be moved before the Ld. Ombudsman. Since the meter was found to be OK and the bill was raised accordingly the Complainant was liable to pay the billed amount. As he failed to pay the bill in time the electric line was disconnected. The impugned order accordingly is liable to be set aside.

         Ld. Advocate appearing for the Respondent/Complainant submitted that there was huge discrepancy in recording of meter readings as it was noticed that for the first bill only 56 units were recorded but there after the consumption of electricity was found to be abnormally high on the meter showing average consumption of 800 units per day but subsequently it was found that the average consumption was about 31 units per day. That was a serious variation problem brought to the notice of the Appellant / OP and they failed to  verify the correct readings of the meter with the installation of a check meter. Even the expert appointed on behalf of the OP/ Appellant in course of the proceedings of the complaint case failed to submit a proper report. The report was not at all acceptable since no check meter was installed for verifying the defective meter. Accordingly , Ld. Forum below took note of all relevant facts and grounds and decided to rectify the bill on the basis of calculation of average consumption. The Respondent / Complainant being harassed compensation has been allowed to be paid. Ld. Forum’s order deserves to be upheld.

                    Decision of reasons :

        The fact goes that after installation of the meter on 10.6.2013 at the premises of the Complainant the first reading recorded was 56 units on 16.9.2013 the next reading after a gap of about 3 months was 80,231 units which was abnormally high. Accordingly, the Complainant disputed the Electricity Bill raised by the Appellant/OP. Steps were taken by the OP to verify the meter and there was nothing wrong as verified by the technical staff of the OP Company. Accordingly, the Complainant / Respondent was asked to pay the bill. Since , the bill was not paid , the OP disconnected the Electric Service on the ground of non-payment of bill. It was incumbent upon the Consumer being the Respondent/Complainant to approach the Grievance Redressal Officer as prescribed under the Electricity Act and Regulations made there under. Instead of filing a complaint before the Grievance Redressal Officer , the Respondent Complainant filed the consumer complaint. In fact , as per provision of the Indian Electricity Act 2003 and the WBERC (Supply of Electricity Code) Regulations 2013 , a consumer under the Electricity Act , if dissatisfied with any bill , may move the Grievance Redressal Officer for proper adjudication and in case of dissatisfaction with the order of the Grievance Redressal Officer, Ld. Ombudsman may be moved in appeal . In the present case, the complaint filed before the Ld. Forum below is pre-mature and we are inclined to hold that as the billing dispute is the moot point of the complaint case , the Complainant should have availed the remedy as provided under the Electricity Act. In the said circumstances , the appeal succeeds. Hence,

                                      Ordered

That the appeal be and the same is allowed . The impugned order is set aside. Consequently, the complaint stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost.