DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
MUCHIPARA, BURDWAN.
Consumer Complaint No.143 of 2015
Date of filing: 06.7.2015 Date of disposal: 06.5.2016
Complainant: Mrinal Kanti Tah, S/o. Late Bibhutibhushan Tah, resident of C/o. Tah Machinery, Badamtala, PO., PS. & District: Burdwan, PIN – 713 101.
-V E R S U S-
Opposite Party: 1. West Bengal State electricity Distribution Company Limited, office of the Assistant Engineer & Station Manager, represented through its Station Manager, having its office at Sector II, Badamtala, PO., Ps. & District: Burdwan, PIN – 713 101.
2. West Bengal State electricity Distribution Company Limited, Divisional Office, represented through its Divisional Manager, having its office at Monimart, District: Burdwan, PIN – 713 101.
3. West Bengal State electricity Distribution Company Limited, represented through its Chairman, having its office at Bidyut Bhawan, Block – C, 5th Floor, Sector – 2, Salt Lake, Kolkata – 91.
Present: 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: 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 and unfair trade practice against the OPs as the OPs have sent an erroneous electric bill upon him.
The brief fact of the case of the complainant is that being a bonafide consumer he got domestic electric connection and the OPs used to send bills after taking meter reading physically. The complainant used to consume 80-100 units of electricity per month averagely. It is stated by the complainant that in the month of November, 2014 he got one electric bill from the OP -1 dated 08.11.2014 amounting to Rs.4,340.37 paisa, which includes Rs.1,446.39 paisa for the month of November,2014, Rs.1,446.39 paisa for the month of December, 2014, Rs.1,446.39 paisa for the month of January, 2014. The said bill was sent by the OP-1 without taking any meter reading and in the said bill it was mentioned the consumed unit as 676 for the period from 28.7.2014 to 03.11.2014. Moreover in the said bill it was also endorsed by the OP -1 that ‘meter seems defective’. After getting the said bill the complainant rushed to the office of the OP -1 and requested for rectification of the bill. It was also requested by him for sending bill as per meter reading. It is pertinent to mention that though the OP has mentioned in the bill dated 08.11.2014 that the meter seems defective, but they sent the bill as per meter reading of the said defective meter. Moreover inspite of knowing that the meter is defective they sent the bills as per meter reading instead of changing the defective meter. In the bill dated 08.11.2014 the OP-1 mentioned that the present meter reading as 7791, which is arbitrary, manufactured and self-made reading and not only that the OPs have done the same for monetary gain. When the complainant went to the office of the OP-1 the officials did not pay any heed to his request and for this reason he was constrained to file a written representation before the OP -1 and a copy of the same was given to the OP -3 through registered post with AD on 14.11.2014. In the said letter the complainant mentioned the meter reading which was appeared in his meter. After getting the said letter the OP-1 installed a challenge meter at his premises and at the time of installing the same the personnel of the OP -1 mentioned orally that the meter of the complainant is correct. After ten days from the date of installation of the challenge meter the OP -1 without changing the meter un-installed the challenge meter stating that the meter is correct. Very surprisingly without solving the dispute the OPs issued a notice upon him U/s. 56(1) of the Electricity Act and directed him to deposit a sum of Rs.4,341=00 along with disconnection and reconnection charge of Rs.100=00 within 12.02.2015. Again, on 11.02.2015 the OPs issued another letter to him mentioning that as the complainant had not paid the outstanding amount so they are not in a position to change the meter. On 12.02.2015 the complainant sent a letter to the OPs, asking them for sending correct bill. On 17.02.2015 the OPs sent a letter to the complainant wherein it was stated that the meter is defective and as there was disparity of reading, they have sent the bill as per WBERC Regulation-56. The complainant has mentioned that the OPs without taking any steps to solve the dispute disconnected the electric connection. Having no alternative he had to pay Rs.7, 300=00 along with disconnection and reconnection charges to the OP-1 on 07.3.2015. The complainant also sent a letter on the same date through his Ld. Advocate to the Ops. After getting the payment the OPs reconnected the electric connection in this context. It is pertinent to mention that after giving the reconnection charge the OPs have installed a new meter on 24.4.2015 and sent the bill on 22.5.2015 as per meter reading of the new meter. Though the complainant is a bonafide consumer of the OP who had not done any act detrimental to the interest of the OP, inspite of this the OPs arbitrarily, whimsically and with a view to harass him sent illegal bill and moreover for monetary gain the OPs started to send electric bill one after another along with letters for creating pressure upon him to pay the illegal bill amount instead of changing the meter. Finding the no other alternative the complainant has approached before this Ld. Forum by filing this complaint praying for direction upon the OPs to refund the amount of Rs.7, 300=00 to him along with interest from the date of making payment of the same, compensation to the tune of Rs.25, 000=00 due to mental pain, agony and harassment suffered by him and litigation cost of Rs.25, 000=00.
The petition of complaint have been contested by the Ops by filing written version where it is mentioned that the electric connection effected at the premises of the complainant on 30.4.1996 for running a business and since installation the energy bills were raised on meter reading basis and sometimes on average basis due to non-functioning of the meter installed therein. But the complainant paid those bills and from the bills it is apparent that the monthly consumption of the complainant was more than 100 units. As the installed meter was not functioning properly it was showing reading lower side. Such as 198 on 28.4.2014 towards consumption of three months. On 28.7.2014 it showed 75 units (for three months) and on 30.10.2014 as 11 units (three months). As the meter became defective as per WBERC guideline (clause no. 55) and sub-clause 3.8.3 a challenged meter was installed beside the existing meter to check the accuracy of the existing meter. The result showed that there was disparity of three units by and between the challenged meter and the existing meter. The report was sent to the complainant in writing and as the meter became defunct, bill was raised as per consumption of similar period of last year and the consumption was calculated from the previous reading. The technical personnel of the Op-1 went at the premise of the complainant on several occasions but the complainant did not allow doing anything. Only when the complainant received a notice under Section 56 (1) of the Electricity Act wherein it was stated for making payment of the outstanding amount, otherwise connection will be disconnected then only a new meter was installed at the premises of the complainant after making payment of the outstanding amount along with reconnection and disconnection charges. The OPs have further stated that in view of the provision of the Electricity Act, 2003 as well as the Ruling passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein it has been sated that if there is any grievance against any bill and 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 alternative and appropriate forum this ld. Forum has no jurisdiction to try the instant complaint. Accordingly prayer has been made by the ops for dismissal of the complaint.
The complainant has filed evidence on affidavit along with several papers and document in support of his contention and the Ops have filed written notes of argument. The Ops have also relied on a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2007) 0 Supreme (SC) 1061.
We have carefully perused the record and heard argument as advanced by the ld. Counsel for the parties. It is seen by us that the complainant got domestic electric connection at his premises on his name and used to make payment of the bill amount issued by the Ops on regular basis. The Ops were used to issue electric bills after taking meter reading physically. The allegation of the complainant is that in the month of November 2014 he got an electric bill from the Op-1 dated 08.11.2014 amounting to Rs. 4340.37 for three months consumption , includes Rs. 1446.79 for the month of November 2014, Rs. 1446.79 for the month of December, 2014, Rs. 1446.79 for the month of January 2015. In the said bill as it was written by the Ops that the meter became defective hence according to the complainant the bill was raised on average basis without taking any meter reading personally. Moreover, in the said bill the consumed unit is shown as 676 units for the period from 28.7.2014 to 03.11.2014. According to the complainant his monthly consumption is about 80 units to 100 units per month, so the Ops have raised the said electric bill arbitrarily and whimsically with a view to grab some money through an unscrupulous manner for their monetary gain. Such issuance of erroneous bill by the Ops is an example of deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice. The rebuttal case of the Ops is that as the meter became defective hence, average bill was raised based on the earlier consumption type and according to the Electricity Act, 2003 the consumer is under obligation for making payment of any electricity bill, if disputed/erroneous with objection and grievance is to be redressed by the grievance redressal offices as per the WBERC guideline, whose opinion is binding on both the parties. But in the instant complaint as the complainant did not make payment of the bill amount the electric connection was disconnected by the Ops and in this respect the contention of the Ops is that due to non-payment of an electric bill they are empowered to disconnect any electric connection. Further submission has been made by the Ops that the complainant got electric connection for commercial purpose to run business and the instant complaint as alleged by the complainant cannot be adjudicated by this ld. Forum in view of the Electricity Act, 2003 as well as the Ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The complainant has prayed for certain reliefs and the Ops have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
The complainant has alleged that the bill dated 08.11.2014 was raised by the Ops without taking any meter reading, but in this respect as the complainant has not filed the photocopy of the yellow card, hence the complainant has miserably failed to substantiate his allegation. Without any cogent document we cannot say that the meter reader did not take meter reading physically. The Ops have stated that the electric connection was installed for commercial purpose to run business. In this respect Ops have also miserably failed to show any cogent document in support of their contentions. The meter number shows that the same is for domestic purpose.
Now we turn up our eyes to the allegation made out by the complainant that the bill dated 08.11.2014 issued by the Op-1 is defective, erroneous, whimsical and the same was raised arbitrarily. From the photocopy of the said bill it is noticed by us that the Ops have written that the meter is defective. Therefore, it is clear that the said bill was raised by the Op-1 on average basis. As the said bill was raised on average basis and according to the complainant it was erroneous, the complainant did not make payment of the said bill. The complainant rushed at the office of the Op-1 for rectification of the amount, but to no effect. After 14.11.2014 the Ops have installed a challenged meter beside the existing meter in circuit. From the reading of the challenged meter we have noticed there is disparity of three units by and between the challenged meter and the existing meter. Therefore, it can be said that the existing meter in circuit became defective. When the Ops noticed that the meter became defective, the picture is not clear to us. As the complainant did not make payment of the bill amount, notice was issued by the Ops as per Electricity Act for making payment of the amount, otherwise the electric connection will be disconnected. Lastly, the complainant paid the entire amount of the bill and upon receipt of the amount the defective meter was replaced by the ops with a defect-free and new one. By filing this complaint the complainant has prayed for refund of the amount Rs. 7,300=00 paid by him in respect of the electric bill as the same was demanded by the Ops in respect of the defective meter. But we cannot say whether any amount, as claimed by the OPs was correct or not as we have no power to assess the correctness of the bill amount. Moreover we also cannot say or we have no authority to give direction upon the OPs for waiving the electric bill. 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 defective meter being no-750427761 has already been replaced by the OPs in the month of April, 2015. 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 08.11.2014. The OPs are directed to redress his grievance 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 issued by the OPs, the OPs may take action as per law, as the disputed bill has already been paid by the complainant future step shall be taken in view of the opinion of the Grievance Redressal Officer.
The Ops have relied on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of The Maharashtra State
Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. vs. Lloyds Steel Industries Ltd. reported in (2007) 0 Supreme (SC) 1061 wherein it has been held that wherever a Forum/Ombudsman have been created the consumers can only resort to these bodies for redressal of their grievances. In the paragraph 9 Their Lordships have held which runs as follows:
9. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the Commission as well as the Appellate Authority are unsustainable and they have erred in coming to the conclusion that the Commission has jurisdiction. Consequently, we set aside the order dated 18.10.2005 passed by the Commission and the orders dated o5.4.2006 and 02.6.2006 passed by the Appellate Authority and remit the matter to the proper Forum created under Section 42(5) of the Act to decide the grievance of the respondent herein in accordance with law. We make it clear that we have not made any observation with regard to the merits of the demand raised by the appellant upon the respondent company and it will be open for the proper forum to adjudicate the same. The payment, if any, made by the company will not operate as an estoppels against the respondent company. We hope that the forum will decide the matter expeditiously…………………….”
Having regard to the above-mentioned observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court we are of the view that this ld. Forum cannot pass any order in favour of the complainant relating to the disputed electric bill.
The complainant has prayed for compensation as well as litigation cost. We did not find any deficiency in service on behalf of the Ops because due to non- payment of any bill, if disputed or erroneous whatever it may be, the complainant is under obligation for making payment of the bill amount with objection as per the Electricity Act. As the complainant has failed to discharge his liability, hence he cannot claim any compensation from the Ops due to their deficiency in service. As the prayer for compensation is not allowed, hence we cannot pass an award towards the prayer of litigation cost.
Going by the foregoing discussion, hence, it is
O r d e r e d
that the complaint is dismissed on contest. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the complaint there is no order as to costs.
Let plain copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per provisions of Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
Dictated and corrected by me.
(Silpi Majumder)
Member
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Pankaj Kumar Sinha) (Silpi Majumder)
Member Member
DCDRF, Burdwan DCDRF, Burdwan
