Date of filing: 23.12.2015 Date of disposal: 05.08.2016
Complainant: Mr. Lakshman Samanta, S/o Lt. Ajit Samanta, vill-Arrha, P.O. Amarun Bazar, P.S. Bhatar, District- Burdwan, Pin-713125.
-V E R S U S-
Opposite Party: 1. Bhatar West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, Represented by its Station Manager, having its office at Bhatar, P.O. & P.S. Bhatar, District-Burdwan, Pin-713125.
2. West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, Represented by its Chairman, having its office at Bidyut Bhawan, Block-C, 5th Floor, Sector-2, Salt Lake, Kolkata-700 091.
Present: Hon’ble President: Sri Asoke Kumar Mandal.
Hon’ble Member: Smt. Silpi Majumder.
Hon’ble Member: Sri Pankaj Kumar Sinha.
Appeared for the Complainant: Ld. Advocate, Suvro Chakraborty .
Appeared for the Opposite Party No. 1: .
Appeared for the Opposite Party No. 2: Ld. Advocate,.
J U D G E M E N T
This complaint is filed by the Complainant u/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice against the OPs as the OPs have raised inflated electric bill upon him.
The brief fact of the case of the Complainant is that being a poor cultivator he used to consume electricity from the OPs in respect of running submersible pump situated beside his field. Through cultivation of 16 bighas of filed he used to earn his livelihood. The OP-1 used to supply electricity to him through the Meter no LF500629 and service connection no-STW/15348. The consumer number of the Complainant is L800625. The OPs used to send bill to him as per meter reading and the Complainant paid the same regularly. The OP-1 suddenly sent a bill dated 14.11.2012 to him claiming a sum of Rs.123/- for consuming 16 units of electricity for the month of November, 2012. In the said bill the OP-1 also mentioned that there was an outstanding amount of Rs.36,557/-. Firstly the Complainant raised objection against the said bill, but due to fear of disconnection of electricity at the time of rowing of paddy the Complainant paid a sum of Rs.25,930/- and Rs.11,022/- respectively in two installments along with Rs.100/- towards disconnection and reconnection charge to the OP-1 on 21.01.2014 and 20.02.2014. Upon received of such payment the OP-1 issued money receipts in favour of the Complainant. On 15.01.2013 some miscreants stole the meter, cable and other apparatus from the room of submersible pump. On the very next day i.e. on 16.01.2013 the Complainant lodged a GDE before the Bhatar Police Station and the said Police Station registered the complaint as GDE no-797/2013 dated 16.01.2013. The Complainant also intimated the matter of theft to the OP-1 by submitting written representation and the OP-1 had duly received the same. Thereafter the Complainant on several occasions requested the OP-1 for installation of new meter and providing him electric connection, but the OP neither provided electric connection nor paid any heed to his request. After the said occurrence the OP did not issue any bill upon the Complainant till 21.02.2014. In the last week of February, 2014 the OP-1 issued a bill dated 21.02.2014 to the Complainant claiming a sum of Rs.79,455/- including Rs.17,218/- as LPSC charge. In the said bill the Op-1 had mentioned that the Complainant consumed 16870 units of electricity in between 29.11.2012 to 29.01.2014. It was also mentioned by the OP-1 in the bill that the meter seems defective. The OP-1 inspite of knowing fully well that the meter was theft on 15.01.2013 and there was no connection in the said plot, issued such illegal, arbitrary and whimsical bill upon him. Upon received the bill the Complainant became surprised because where there is no connection, how he consumed 16870 units of electricity and how the OP-1 mentioned the theft meter as defective. Being so surprised the Complainant submitted a written representation on 26.02.2014 to the OP-1 requesting to correct the bill, but the OP-1 did not pay any heed to his request. It is pertinent to mention that the OP-1 instead of correcting the illegal bill, installed a new meter bearing no- RLX10659 in the room of the submersible pump in the month of September, 2014 and thereafter send bill regularly on the basis of the meter reading. Instead of correcting the bill the OP-1 not only charged interest upon the said illegal bill, but increasing the amount day by day and threatened the Complainant that in case of non-payment of any bill amount, the OPs will disconnect the electric connection. As the OP-1 created pressure on him, the Complainant paid the first illegal bill amount raised by the OP on 14.11.2012. According to the Complainant such action of the OPs can easily be termed as deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice. As his grievance had not been redressed by the OP-1 before coming to this Ld. Forum, having no alternative the Complainant has approached before this ld. Forum by filing this complaint praying for direction upon the OPs to correct the bill, to take the correct bill amount in installment, to make payment of Rs.25,000/- to him towards compensation due to mental pain, agony and harassment as suffered by him and litigation cost of Rs.25,000/-.
It is evident from the record that after admission of this complaint on 30.12.2015 notices were issued. Date was fixed on 25.01.2016 for service return and appearance of the OPs. On 25.01.2016 the Ld. Counsel for the OPs appeared and undertook to file vokalatnama on the next date and also prayed time for filing written version. On 25.02.2016 the Ld. Counsel submitted his vokalatnama on behalf of the OPs and prayed further time for filing the written version. The said prayer was allowed. On 18.04.2016 same prayer was made by the OPs and the prayer was also allowed as a last chance. Date was fixed for filing written version on 09.05.2016 for ends of justice, but on that date also the OPs have failed to file the written version and prayed further time and the same was also allowed by directing the OPs to file the same on 27.05.2016 positively, but as the OPs have failed to submit the same on 27.05.2016 the Ld. Forum passed an order that the complaint will run exparte against the OPs and fixed on 10.06.2016 for exparte hearing. On 10.06.2016 the OPs appearing before the Ld. Forum prayed for acceptance of the written version , but on perusing the written version it was appeared that the same has not been signed by the Station Manager or by the Chairman and the same was signed by the Assistant manager (HR & A). As no authorization was submitted during the course of hearing the Ld. Counsel for the OPs by filing a petition had prayed time for filing the authorization letter. The said prayer was considered and for ends of justice the hearing was adjourned and the ld. Forum fixed on 08.07.2016 for exparte hearing on the point of acceptance of written version. On 08.07.2016 the OPs have prayed for an adjournment and on that date on behalf of the OPs a copy of authorized letter was filed but the same did not show that the Assistant Manager of Burdwan Division has been authorized to put signature in the written version and the other petitions. On repeated calls none was appeared on behalf of the OPs and for this reason the authorized letter submitted on behalf of the OPs was kept in the record. Date was fixed for exparte argument on 01.08.2016. On 01.08.2016 on behalf of the OPs by filing a petition an adjournment was prayed for and on that date the OPs also filed their written version. But during the course of hearing none was appeared on behalf of the OPs and the ld. Forum waited for a considerable period for appearance of the Ld. Counsel on behalf of the OPs. But till the end of ejlash as none was present on behalf of the OPs, we took the argument exparte against the OPs. Be it mentioned that the written version along with a separate petition as submitted by the OPs has been kept in the record. We have heard argument from the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant at length. Be it mentioned that the Complainant has received the copy of the written version.
We have carefully perused the entire record along with papers and documents filed by the Complainant and heard argument at length advanced by the ld. Counsel for the Complainant. It is seen by us that the allegation of the complainant is that the OP-1 has issued inflated and arbitrary electric bills in his favour and declared the theft meter as defective. According to the Complainant such action of the OPs suffers from deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice.
It is noticed by us that there are some admitted facts i.e. the Complainant is a consumer of the OPs as the electric connection was effected to him by the OPs for running submersible pump situated beside his field, the Complainant used to earn his livelihood by cultivating his 16 bighas of field, the Complainant used to make payment of the electric bills issued by the OP-1 regularly, on 14.11.2012the Complainant received one electric bill for the month of November, 2012 to the tune of Rs.123/-, in the said bill it was mentioned by the OP-1 that there was an outstanding amount of Rs. 36,557/- in the name of the Complainant, in two installments the Complainant paid a sum of Rs.25,930/- and 11,022/- along with Rs.100/- towards disconnection and reconnection charge, upon received of the said amount the OP-1 issued money receipt in favour of the Complainant, on 15.01.2013 the electric meter, cable and other apparatus was stolen from the room of the submersible pump by some miscreants, On 16.01.2013 the Complainant lodged GDE with the Bhatar Police Station, the complaint was registered as 797/2013 dated 16.01.2013, the OP-1 was intimated by the Complainant about such theft through written correspondence, request was made by the Complainant for installation of new electric meter, the OP-1 did not take any immediate action for such installation, after theft the Op-1 did not issue any electric bill in favour of the Complainant till 21.02.2014, in the last week of February, 2014 the OP-1 send a bill dated 21.02.2014 to the complainant claiming a sum of Rs.79,455/- including Rs.17,218/- as LPSC charge, in the said bill it was mentioned that from 29.11.2012 to 29.01.2014 the Complainant consumed 16870 units of electricity, it was also mentioned in the said bill that the meter seems defective, the Complainant had submitted written representation on 26.02.2014 to the OP-1 requesting for correction of the bill, ultimately in the month of September, 2014 a new electric meter was installed in the room of the submersible pump. The allegation of the Complainant is that the OP-1 without installing a new meter had raised an arbitrary electric bill in his favour and without correcting the said inflated bill the OP-1 used to increase the amount day by day and inspite of knowing that the meter has been stolen how the OP-1 mentioned the said stolen meter as defective. It is seen by us that admittedly the Complainant paid the outstanding amount of Rs.36,557/-after two years i.e. 21.01.2014 and 20.02.2014 from the bill date i.e. 14.11.2012 in two installments along with reconnection and disconnection charge of Rs.100/- to the OP-1, but at that time no late payment surcharge was paid by the Complainant as per the Electricity Act, 2003.Therefore subsequently the OP-1 claimed a sum of Rs.17,218/- as LPSC charge in the bill dated 21.02.2014, but the said amount was not paid by the Complainant. Though the Complainant was under obligation either to make payment of the bill amount within due period or to pay the LPSC charge to the OP-1, but the Complainant has failed to discharge his obligation and for this reason the Complainant is now under obligation to make payment of the LPSC charge along with interest to the OP-1 as per its claim. It is true that on 15.01.2013 the meter was stolen by some miscreants and the said information was duly given by the Complainant through written representation to the OP-1 requesting for installation of a new meter. After theft one GDE was lodged with the concerned police station. The document no-6 dated 26.02.2014 as filed by the Complainant shows that due to need of cultivation he had to use the said electric connection without any meter. Admittedly the OP-1 did not raise any electric bill till 21.002.2014 from the date of getting information of theft of electric meter. In the last week of February, 2014 the Complainant received an electric bill dated 21.02.2014 to the tune of Rs.79,455/- including Rs.17,218/- towards LPSC charge. The contention of the Complainant is that due to theft of the electric meter by the miscreants he could not use the said meter and for this reason the OP-1 is not entitled to claim any amount for the period from the date of theft till installation of the new meter. In this respect we are of the view that where there is an admission made by the Complainant that without the said meter he used the said electric connection due to urgency of cultivation, hence the Complainant is liable to make payment of the bill amount as claimed by the OP-1. According to the Complainant the amount as claimed by the OP-1 is an arbitrary one, hence until and unless the bill amount is rectified by the OP-1 he is not in a position to make payment of the said bill amount. In the prayer portion of the complaint it is prayed for correction of the bill dated 21.02.2014 and prayed for giving direction to the OP-1 to claim the rectified amount in installment. In this regard we are of the opinion that we have no authority to rectify the bill dated 21.02.2014 and as per the Electricity Act, 2003 Authority of the WBSEDCL is empowered to check the inflated electric bill and the defective meter. Admittedly out of Rs.79,455/- Rs.17,218/- was claimed by the OP-1 towards LPSC charge, in our view the OP-1 is very much entitled to claim the LPSC charge from the Complainant because the Complainant paid the bill amount after two years in two installments and the Complainant is also liable to make payment of the LPSC charge to the OP-1 as claimed.
Next we are to say that in the interest of equal justice we cannot direct the OPs not to claim any farthing from the Complainant towards the disputed bill or to claim the amount on average basis or to rectify the disputed bill. Moreover we cannot assess the bill as we do not have any machinery to do the same. Regarding disputed electric bill or defective meter what is to be done the same has been clearly mentioned in the Electricity Act, 2003.
As per Electricity Act, 2003 and West Bengal Regulatory Commission 2004 in case of disputed or erroneous bill the power has vested to the Regulatory Authority to assess the said bill and in this respect the Consumer Forum has no power. The said Regulation 2004 is as follows:-
3.5.1……..In case there is any dispute in the billed amount, the aggrieved party may lodge a complainant before the designated officer/agency in terms of the grievance procedure and pay under protest an amount equal to electricity charges due from such consumer for the month which shall be calculated on the basis of average charge of electricity paid by the consumer during preceding 6 months or an amount equal to the sum claimed in the bill from the consumer whichever is less than due date pending settlement of the dispute. The amount so calculated and tendered by the consumer shall be prima-facie accepted against that bill on provisional basis. The shortfall/difference, if any, shall be notified within 7 days to such consumer by the licensee and the same will be paid by the consumer within 5 days of receipt of such demand.
3.5.2……..If on examination, the licensee finds that the disputed bill is erroneous, a revised corrected bill shall be furnished to the consumer. The amount paid in excess, if any, by the consumer, shall become refundable with interest at a rate which shall be the same as applicable to security deposit or any other rate as may be decided by the Commission from time to time. The refund of the excess amount shall be made by the licensee through an adjustment in the subsequent bill in which the amount is adjusted would be treated as date of refund and interest calculated accordingly.
3.5.3……..Likewise, if on examination it is established that the original bill was correct, then the consumer shall be intimated accordingly and notified to pay the balance, if any with applicable surcharge and interest within 7 days of receipt. The rate of interest shall be same as in Regulation 3.5.2. However, consumer shall have a right to take up his complaint as per Grievance Procedure and other relevant provision of the Act and Regulations.
3.5.4…….. The licensee shall resolve the dispute and communicate its decision along with the reasons to the affected party as per the grievance procedure in the manner given therein.
3.5.5………Notwithstanding anything contained under this section, the cases falling under section 126 of the Act or any section which prescribes for any, specific procedure under the act shall not fall under this section.
It is an admitted fact that the stolen meter being no-LF500629 has already been replaced by the OP-1 in the month of September, 2014. So the said defective meter is lying under the custody of the OPs. So in view of the settled legal position the OPs shall approach before the Grievance Redressal Officer for redressal of the grievance of the Complainant in respect of the disputed electric bill in question i.e. bill dated 21.02.2014 except the amount as claimed by the OP-1 towards LPSC charge. The OPs are directed to redress grievance of the Complainant preferably within a period of six months from the date of approach by the Complainant before the appropriate Authority. The Complainant is also directed to approach before the said Authority along with all the relevant documents, his complaint regarding disputed bill and a copy of this judgment forthwith. Be it mentioned that in case of non-payment of any later electric bill/s issued by the OPs, the OPs may take action as per law, but we are also inclined to mention that due to non-payment of the disputed amount (except the LPSC charge), if any the OPs shall not disconnect his electric service connection. Though the Complainant has prayed for compensation and litigation cost in his favour, but as the Complainant has failed to discharge his own liability, hence he is not entitled to get any relief on this score.
Going by the foregoing discussion hence it is ordered that the complaint is allowed in part exparte against the OPs without any cost. Both parties are directed to take appropriate steps in respect of the disputed bill and defective meter as aforementioned.
(Asoke Kr. Mandal)
Dictated and corrected by me. President
D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan
(Silpi Majumder)
Member
D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan
(Silpi Majumder) (Sri Pankaj Kr. Sinha)
Member Member
D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan
