DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
MUCHIPARA, BURDWAN.
Consumer Complaint No 06 of 2015
Date of filing: 07.01.2015 Date of disposal: 09.9.2015
Complainant: Milon Koner, S/o. Pinak Pani Koner, resident of Vill. & PO: Karanda, PS: Manteswar, Dist: Burdwan, PIN – 713 422.
-V E R S U S-
Opposite Party: 1. Station Manager, WBSEDCL, Monteswar, PO. & PS: Monteswar, represented through its sub Post Master, Dist: Burdwan, PIN – 713 145.
2. Divisional Manager (Distribution), Burdwan Electric Supply, having its office at Monimart, G.T.Road, PS. & Dist: Burdwan, PIN – 713 101.
3. West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, represented through its Secretary, Bidyut Bhavan, Block-DJ, Salt Lake City, Kolkata – 700 091.
Present: Hon’ble President: Asoke Kumar Mandal.
Hon’ble Member: Smt. Silpi Majumder.
Appeared for the Complainant: Ld. Advocate, Suvro Chakraborty.
Appeared for the Opposite Party (s): Ld. Advocate, Biswanath Nag.
J U D G E M E N T
This complaint is filed by the complainant u/S. 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service against the Ops as the Ops had illegally disconnected his electric connection and illegally demanded an exorbitant amount towards the said connection.
The brief fact of the case of the complainant is that being a domestic consumer of the Ops he used to pay all the bills raised by the Ops as per meter reading. The average reading was about for Rs. 150=00 per month. On 13.6.2001 the complainant received an electric bill for the period from January 2001 to May 2001 to the tune of Rs. 26,637=00. No meter reading was taken by the Electric Department after 02.9.2000 and on 30.5.2001 they took the meter reading. Thereafter the said bill was raised. The complainant raised objection against the said bill and paid Rs. 4,000=00 only. Due to financial stringency he could not be able to pay any amount towards the said bill. On the first half of the 2013 the Electric Department disconnected his electric connection without assigning any notice and then only having no alternative he deposited the remaining amount of the said bill. Again in the year 2014 he received a bill for Rs. 47,417=00 and against the said bill the complainant issued two letter dated 13.6.2014 & 04.7.2014 but without disclosing the grievance of the consumer and without sending any prior notice the Electric Department disconnected the electric connection on 10.11.2014. Thought the complainant is a bonafide consumer of the Ops but the conduct of the Ops reveal illegal, whimsical and arbitrary as the Ops have disconnected the electric connection of the complainant without sending any prior notice, which is an example of deficiency in service as per Electricity Act. For this reason the complainant had approached before this ld. Forum for redressal of his grievance by filing this complaint praying for direction upon the Ops for correction of the bill of Rs. 48,112=00, compensation for Rs. 25,000=00 due to mental pain and agony and litigation cost of Rs. 5,000=00.
The petition of complaint have been contested by the Ops by filing conjoint written version wherein it is stated that the electric connection was effected at the house of the complainant with a load of 0.71 KVA and since installation the energy bills were raised on actual consumption basis and accordingly the bill for June 2014 to August 2014 has been raised as per reading and in the said bill an amount of Rs. 47,019.36 has been claimed as late payment surcharge for non- payment of earlier bills within due date and the said LPSC charges has been claimed as per regulation of WBERC. But the complainant upon receipt of the said bill did not pay the same within due date as mentioned and due to non- payment of bill amount electric connection was disconnected. Not only that a notice of disconnection was issued before disconnection and inspite of receipt of the same the complainant did not comply with the terms and the conditions of the said notice and accordingly the service connection was disconnected on 31.10.2014. The complainant being a habitual defaulter knowing everything and without making payment of the outstanding dues has filed the instant complaint with a view to squeeze some money though an illegal manner which is liable to be dismissed with cost. The Ops have further submitted in view of the provision of Electricity Act, 2003 and the Rules and Regulations framed thereunder if there is any grievance against any bill or payment made thereof that should be ventilated before the Regulatory Commission or before the person or authority empowered by the said Act and as such having an appropriate and alternative statutory forum this ld. Forum has no jurisdiction to try with the instant complaint. Accordingly, prayer has been made by the Ops for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary cost.
The complainant has filed several documents along with electricity bills in support of his contention. The complainant also has relied on some judgments. The Ops have filed written notes of argument along with one judgment in support of their contention. Both parties have relied on some specific Sections of Electricity Act, 2003, 2008 & 2012.
We have carefully perused the record and document filed by the parties and also heard argument advance by the ld. Counsel for the parties at length. It is an admitted fact that the complainant is a domestic consumer of the Ops, one bill consisting for five months i.e. from January 2001 to May 2001 for Rs. 26,637=00 raise on 13.6.2001, the same was paid by the complainant, out of the said amount the complainant prima facie deposited Rs. 4,000=00 and thereafter in the first half of 2013 he paid the entire balance amount, as he did not pay Rs. 26,637=00 at a time his electric connection was disconnected by the Electric Department and thereafter upon making payment of the entire amount his connection was reconnected by the said Department, though the said bill was raised in the year 2001 but the disconnection was made by the Electric Department on the first half of 2013, the complainant received another bill in 2014 to the tune of Rs. 47,717=00, issued two request letters upon the Ops on 13.6.2014 & 04.7.2014, but his grievance has not been mitigated by the Ops and as he could not pay the said amount within due date as specified in the bill, his electric connection was disconnected by the Ops on 10.11.2014. The allegation of the complainant is that the bill consisting of Rs. 47,417=00 raised by the Ops in the year 2014 is exorbitant, illegal and arbitrary and disconnection was done on 10.11.2014 by the Ops due to non-payment of the said amount within due date and without assigning any prior notice for disconnection. According to the complainant such issuance of illegal bill and illegal disconnection can easily be termed as deficiency in service of the Ops. The case of the Ops is that as the complainant did not pay the amount as claimed in the bill within due date the electric connection was disconnected by them issuing prior notice and in this respect there was no deficiency in service as the Ops have acted as per Electricity Act, Rules and Regulations wherein it is clearly stated that due to non-payment of electric bill the Ops are empowered to disconnect any electric connection of the consumer. Further plea is taken by the Ops is that in view of existence of specific Rules and Regulation in the Electricity Act, 2003 wherein it is stated that the grievance against any bill or payment should be ventilated to the Regulatory Commission or the competent person and for this reason as there is an appropriate and alternative statutory forum, this Forum has no jurisdiction to try the instant complaint. Prayer has been made by the Ops for dismissal of the complaint.
During hearing of the complaint the ld. Counsel for the Ops has relied on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra Electricity vs. Reliance Energy Ltd. & Ors, decided on 14.8.2007. Relying on the said judgment it is submitted by the ld. Counsel for the Ops that as there exist appropriate and alternative redressal mechanism in view of the Electricity Act, Rules and Regulation 2003, hence this ld. Forum is not empowered to try with this complaint. We have carefully perused the said judgment and it is seen by us that an Appeal (Civil) being no. 2846/2006 was filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003. In Section 125 of the Electricity Act it is enumerated that any person aggrieved by any decision or order of the appellate tribunal, may file an appeal to the Supreme Court within 60 days from the date of communication of the decision or order of the appellate tribunal, to him, on any one or more of the grounds specified in Section 100 of the CPC, 1908. In our view the said dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is not applicable in the case in hand because the fact of the said Appeal (Civil) is totally different from the facts of the instant complaint.
In respect of jurisdiction of this ld. Forum we are to say that in view of Section 3 of C.P. Act, 1986 wherein it is mentioned that the provision of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provision of any other law for the time being in force. Having regard to the above-mentioned Section it can easily be said inspite of existence of appropriate and alternative redressal mechanism as enumerated in the Electricity Act 2003, the complainant is at liberty to prefer a complaint either before the Consumer Forum or the Regulatory Commission as specified in the Electricity Act. There is no bar for filing a complaint before the Consumer Forum and for this reason the Consumer Forum is very much empowered to try the instant complaint filed by the complainant. There are plethoras of decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and we are to refer to the judgment of Kishore Lal Vs. Chairman, Employees’ State Insurance Corporation (2007) 4 SCC (579), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that –
‘The trend of the decisions of this Court is that the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum should not and would not be curtailed unless there is an express provision prohibiting the Consumer Forum to take up the matter which falls within the jurisdiction of Civil Court of any other forum as established under some enactment. The Court had gone to the extent of saying that if two different fora have jurisdiction to entertain the dispute in regard to the same subject, the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum would not be barred and the power of the Consumer Forum to adjudicate upon the dispute could not be negated.’
Having regard to the above-mentioned pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court we are of the view that this complaint is very much maintainable before this ld. Forum and in this respect the contention as made out by the Ops has no merit at all.
Now we turn up our eyes as to whether the complainant is liable to make payment of the bill amount to the tune of Rs. 47,417=00 as mentioned in the complaint and whether the Ops are entitled to claim the said amount from the complainant towards LPSC (late payment surcharge). We are to further adjudicate whether the disconnection made by the Ops of the electric connection on 10.11.2014 was illegal or not.
In the written version of the Ops it is stated that the said amount has been claimed as late payment surcharge for non-payment of the earlier bills within the due date and the same has been claimed as per regulation of WBERC. It is an admitted fact that on earlier occasion in the year 2001 the complainant received a bill for Rs. 26,637=00 and out of which he paid only Rs. 4,000=00 and as the Balance amount was not paid by him, his electric connection was disconnected in the year 2013. Thereafter having no alternative the complainant paid the balance amount of the said bill dated 13.6.2001 in the year 2013 along with reconnection charge and his electric connection was reconnected. Therefore it is clear that the complainant did not pay the earlier amount within due dates and not only that due to non-payment of the bill dated 13.6.2001 the Ops choose to disconnect the electric connection of the complainant after lapse of about 12 years. In this respect no explanation is forthcoming as to why the Ops took much time for taking decision for disconnection due to non-payment of electric bill. Simultaneously one question is cropped up our mind that where the entire payment was made by the complainant in the year 2013 deducting Rs. 4,000=00 in respect of the bill dated 13.6.2001, why the Ops did not claim the late payment surcharge at that point of time i.e. in the year 2013 and why the Ops reconnected the electric line of the complainant without taking the LPSC amount from the complainant. No satisfactory answer has been given by the Ops in this respect. Admittedly the Ops have claimed the amount of Rs. 47,417=00 towards LPSC for the bill dated 13.6.2001.
In this connection the complainant has relied on the Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act wherein it is mentioned that ‘notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no sum due from any consumer, under this Section shall be recoverable after the period of two years from the date when such sum became first due unless such sum has been shown continuously as recoverable as arrear of charges for electricity supply and the licensee shall not cut off the supply of the electricity.’ In this respect we are to say that though the complainant has filed several electric bills as well as payment receipt after making payment of the balance due amount of the electric bill in 2013 (bill dated 13.6.2001), no bill for the year of 2013 has been filed by the complainant. Having regard to the relied Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act we are of the view that the complainant has paid the due amount in the year 2013 and filed this complaint on 07.01.2015 and moreover where the complainant did not file the electric bill of 2013 it is very difficult for us to arrive at a conclusion whether the LPSC was mentioned in the said bills as outstanding amount or not. Therefore, Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act does not apply in the case in hand.
Ld. Counsel for the Ops has argued that the Electric Department is authorized to claim LPSC at any time as per WBERC but in this respect the ld. Counsel has failed to show us any convincing Act, Rules or Regulations. The ld. Counsel for the Ops has mentioned relying on the Section of the Electricity Act that where the disconnection lies for about six months onwards, no consumer relationship exist therein with the department. In this respect we are to say that the electric connection of the complainant was disconnected by the Ops on 10.11.2014 and this complaint was filed by the complainant on 07.01.2015 i.e. within two months from the date of disconnection. Since then as the case is pending before this ld. Forum for adjudication and where the matter is sub-judice before the court of law, such period cannot be treated as time for disconnection. Therefore, such argument has no legs to stand upon. In this respect the complainant has relied on a judgment passed by the Hon’ble SCDRC, Maharastra, Mumbai reported in 2012 (3) CPR (42) wherein it is held that prior notice before disconnection of electricity is necessary. No contrary Ruling has been filed by the Ops. We have carefully perused the said judgment and in our view the factual aspect of the said judgment is not same and identical with the case in hand because in the said case the units in the disputed bill was not properly calculated and for this reason Hon’ble SCDRC was pleased to dismiss the appeal filed by the appellant with cost. But in the case in hand the fact is that the complainant knew very well he paid the entire bill dated 13.6.2001 at a very later stage i.e. after lapse of 12 years and being a consumer of Electric Department it was also within his knowledge that due to such delay payment he is to pay LPSC. Not only that two bills for the year 2013 show the amount towards LPSC. Therefore it cannot be said that the Ops did not mention the amount continuously for two years because after making payment of the entire amount of the bill dated 13.6.2001 two years has not been elapsed at all. So Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act cannot be applicable in the case in hand. As the complainant had paid the bill dated 13.6.2001 at a very later date as per rules, he had to bear late payment surcharge as mentioned by the Ops in the bill. Hence the complaint fails.
Going by the foregoing discussion hence, it is
O r d e r e d
that the complaint is dismissed on contest without any cost.
Let a plain copy of this final order/judgment be supplied to the parties free of charge as per provisions of Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
(Asoke Kumar Mandal)
Dictated and corrected by me. President
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Silpi Majumder)
Member
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Silpi Majumder)
Member
DCDRF, Burdwan
