DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
MUCHIPARA, BURDWAN.
Consumer Complaint No 120 of 2015
Date of filing: 18.5.2015 Date of disposal: 23.11.2015
Complainant: Prasanta Kumar Dutta, S/o. Late Ganga Dhar Dutta, resident of Tejganj Mallick Pukur (North), PO: Sripally, PS. & District: Burdwan, PIN – 713 103.
-V E R S U S-
Opposite Party: 1. West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, Bara Nilpur Bazar Group Electric Supply, Represented through its Station Manager, having its office at Baranilpur Bazar, PO: Sripally, PS. & District: Burdwan, PIN – 713 103.
2. West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, Burdwan Division, Represented through its Divisional Manager, having its office at G. T. Road, Main Math, PO. & PS: Burdwan, District: Burdwan, PIN – 713 101.
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 (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 as well as unfair trade practice of the Ops as the Ops have raised electric bill for the month of December 2013 to February 2014 in an arbitrary manner.
Being a bonafide consumer of the Ops the complainant has been enjoying electric service connection and since its effect the Ops used to take meter reading and sent bills to him regularly. The complainant also used to pay the said bill amount regularly at the office of the OP-1. Being a domestic consumer the average billing amount was of Rs. 250/- per month. From 2010 the OP-1 used to provide spot bill in favour of him and note the meter reading in the yellow card. Very surprisingly after 21.11.2010 though the Ops-1 provided spot bill but did not mention the meter reading in the yellow card. The complainant made several requests in this connection, but to no effect. On 15.10.2013 the OP-1 issued a spot bill in his favour for the month of December 2013 to February 2014 for amount of Rs. 3,449=00, Rs. 3,202=00 & Rs. 3,202=00 respectively. The OP-1 without taking any meter reading issued the said bill and mentioned 1287 as consumed units. For this reason the complainant had to rush to the office of the OP-1 for correction but the agent of the OP-1 did not take any step. So the complainant submitted written representation before the OP-1 on 22.10.2013, but it did not turn up. The complainant had also submitted another written representation before the OP-2, but it also did not bother to pay any heed. It is mentioned that since inception the complainant used to consume not more than 150 units of electricity per month. The Ops without correcting the illegal and whimsical bill had disconnected the electric connection on 09.6.2014 without assigning any written notice to him. Moreover, the Ops issued another bill for Rs. 11,603=00 on 17.7.2014. Having no alternative the complainant approached before the Department of CA & FBP, Burdwan and therein though the authority arranged a meeting for amicable settlement, but the Ops did not attend the meeting. Being aggrieved with such action of the Ops the complainant had filed this complaint before this ld. Forum praying for direction upon the Ops to correct the illegal bill, to reconnect the electric connection at his premises, compensation to the tune of Rs. 25,000=00 due to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, Rs. 10,000=00 towards mental pain and agony and litigation cost of Rs. 10,000=00.
The petition of complaint have been contested by the Ops by filing conjoint written version wherein it is stated that since installation all along the energy bills have been raised as per actual consumption and accordingly the bill of the month of September to November 2013 (consumption period June to August) has been raised for 140 units amounting to Rs. 712/- showing 6999 and 7139 as previous reading and present reading respectively and the complainant paid the same on 08.10.2013. Subsequently the bill for the months for December 2013 to February 2014 (consumption period September to November 2013) has been raised for 1287 units amounting to Rs. 10,110=00 showing previous reading and present reading as 7139 & 8426 respectively and the same has been claimed as per meter reading dated 27.12.2013. But the complainant after receipt of the same did not pay the said bill and thereafter another bill for March 2014 to May 2014 was also issued claiming Rs. 11,462=00 for 216 units on estimated basis due to defective meter showing reading as 8642. In the said bill previous unpaid billed amount of Rs. 10,110=00 for the month of December 2013 to February 2014 has been included but the complainant did not pay the same and due to non-payment of the said bill amount upon servicing of notice the electric connection of the complainant has been disconnected on 09.6.2014. The complainant without making any payment of the outstanding dues filed another case being no. DF 151/2014 before this ld. Forum. In the said complaint the Ops have filed written version. The ld. Forum heard the matter on several dates and as the complainant got knowledge about the fate of the said case did not turn up and as a result the said complaint was dismissed by this ld. Forum. The complainant knowing everything on self-same cause of action again filed the instant case which was also liable to be dismissed with cost. It is mentioned by the Ops that in the meantime the electric connection has been disconnected due to non-payment of electric bills and as per WBSERC if the electric connection is lying as disconnected for more than six months the said connection has been deemed permanent disconnection and as such there is no relationship by and between the complainant and the Ops and for this reason as the complainant is not at all a consumer after lapse of six months, the instant case should be dismissed. The Ops have further submitted that in view of the provision of the Section 42 (5) of the Electricity Act and the Rules and Regulation made thereunder that if there is any grievance against any bill the grievance should be ventilated before the Regulatory Commission or the person or authority empowered by the said Act and for this reason as there is an alternative redressal mechanism this ld. Forum has no jurisdiction to try with the instant complaint. Accordingly the instant complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost being false and vexatious one.
Complainant has filed evidence on affidavit along with several documents.
We have carefully perused the pleadings of the complainant and the Ops along with documents filed by the parties and heard argument at length advanced by the ld. Counsel for the parties. It is seen by us that admittedly the complainant is a consumer of the Ops in respect of electric service connection. From the complaint it is evident that he used to pay electric bill regularly issued by the Ops as per consumption. Prior to 21.11.2010 the Ops used to provide electric bill after inspecting the meter and mention the consumed unit in the yellow card. But thereafter the Ops started to issue spot bill upon inspection of the electric meter and for this reason there was no need to mention the consumed unit of the said cycle in the yellow card. The allegation of the complainant is that on 15.10.2013 when the Ops issued the spot bill for the months of December 2013, January 2014 and February 2014 amounting to Rs. 3,449=00, 3,202=00 & 3,202=00 respectively then the complainant found that the Ops have raised inflated electric bill as his average electrical consumption was for Rs. 250 per month approximately. Upon receipt of the said spot bill it was also noticed by him that the consumed units has been mentioned as 1287. Upon perusal of the spot bill he had to rush before the office of the OP-1 for necessary correction because he was of the view that without taking any meter reading the Ops have issued arbitrary bill claiming such inflated amount. As the grievance of the complainant had not been redressed either by the OP-1 or the OP-2 he has approached before this ld. Forum by filing this complaint praying for certain reliefs.
The rebuttal case of the Ops is that the electric bill dated 15.10.2013 for the month of December 2013 to February 2014 was issued on average basis as the meter in the circuit became defective. It is further stated by the Ops that in respect of defective meter as well as inflated electric bill the remedy lies before the WBSCRC in view of the Section 42 (5) of the Electricity Act, not before the Consumer Forum. Further submission of the Ops is that on earlier occasion the complainant filed a complaint being no. 151/2014 and after dismissal of the same the complainant filed the instant complaint on the self-same cause of action and for this reason this complaint cannot stand as per law. The Ops have contended that even if according to the complainant the bill dated 15.10.2013 was inflated, but it was the primary duty of him for making payment of the said amount along with objection. But without making payment of the said bill the complainant had rushed before this ld. Forum with a view to gain through a malafide manner. As the complainant did not pay the bill in question along with earlier and latter bills the electric connection was disconnected as per the Electricity Act and in that context there is no deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops because the Ops are empowered to disconnect any electric connection of any consumer due to non-payment of electric bill within due period as specified. It is further mentioned in the written version that as the electric connection is lying with the status ‘disconnected’ for more than six months, in view of the Electricity Act the relationship of a consumer and the service provider has been terminated. According to the Ops this complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost because the complainant by filing this vexatious complaint has harassed the Ops with mal-intention.
In respect of the submission of the Ops we are to say at the very outset that admittedly prior to this complaint one complaint being no. 151/2014 was filed by the complainant, but the same was not dismissed by this ld. Forum, on the contrary, the same has been disposed of as withdrawn in view of the petition made by the complainant. Therefore the complainant after withdrawal of the earlier complaint is very much at liberty to file the instant complaint on the self-same cause of action. So the complainant did not violate the legal provisions. In respect of redressal of Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act we are of the opinion that as the Consumer Forum is an alternative redressal mechanism and moreover in view of Section 3 the Consumer Forum has authority and very much empowered to adjudicate the instant complaint. So there is no hard and fast rule that for redressal of the instant grievance the complainant should approach before the WBSERC, it is not mandatory. It is the choice of the complainant/consumer before whom he likes to approach. Therefore the Ops cannot restrain the complainant to approach before the Consumer Forum for redressal of his grievance related to inflated electric bills. From the documents as filed by the complainant it is evident that the complainant did not pay the bill amount of Rs. 722.51 for the months of Sep-Nov 2013 and for this reason in the bill dated 15.10.2013 the said amount has been mentioned by the Ops as outstanding amount. It is also mentioned in the said bill that the complainant paid Rs. 712=00 for the earlier cycle on 08.10.2013. In our view prior to coming before this ld. Forum it was the bounden duty of the complainant to make payment of the outstanding dues amounting to Rs. 722.51 paisa for the period from September-November 2013, but the complainant did not make the said payment and moreover he has suppressed the said fact in the petition of complaint. It is also the obligation of the complainant to approach before any court of law in clean hands. From the bill dated 15.10.2013 it is evident that the Ops have charged for 1287 units to the tune of Rs. 9605.61 paisa for the month of December 2013 to February 2014. In this respect the pleading of the Ops is that as the meter became defective the Ops have raised average billing. In this respect we are to say that nowhere in the petition of complaint it is stated by the complainant that the meter became defective. It is for the first time when the Ops have mentioned the same in their written version. So if the Ops have detected that the meter became defective, then question is cropped up in our mind that what step has been taken by the Ops in respect of defective meter. In view of the Electricity Act after detection of any defect in the meter it is duty of the Ops to remove the same from the circuit and sending it to the expert for examination and in the meantime another meter should be replaced in the said circuit. Another provision has also been enumerated in the Act that for detection of any defect of the meter any good conditioned meter shall be placed by the side of the said defective meter and in this way if can be detected whether the meter in the circuit was suffering from defects or not. But the Ops did not take any step as per their own Act. Mere submission of defective meter cannot save the liability of the Ops. In respect of such submission we are further to say that it is not specifically mentioned by the Ops from which date the meter became defective. Because from the earlier bills it is evident that the Ops issued bill approximately 140 units per cycle to the tune of Rs. 712=00 or Rs. 722=00 etc. But all on a sudden how the consumed unit became 1287, where the meter got defect no answer is forthcoming from the side of the Ops. Moreover after issuance of the said bill dated 15.10.2013 the complainant was told by the Ops that due to defect of the meter the average bill has been raised till coming before this ld. Forum i.e. 18.5.2015. After filing of the written version of this complaint on 20.7.2015 the Ops have for the first time stated that the meter became defective and for this reason average bill was raised. It is seen by us that on 16.7.2014 another bill was raised by the Ops wherein outstanding dues was claimed but in the said bill also nowhere it was mentioned that the meter became defective. Admittedly as the bill was inflated the complainant was not in a position to make payment of the said amount. Due to non-payment of the bill dated 15.10.2013 the electric connection has been disconnected by the Ops. In this respect we are of the view that where it was within the knowledge of the Ops due to defect in the meter average bill was raised, in that context disconnection can be termed as deficiency in service as well as such action reveals the highhandedness of the Ops which cannot be permitted in the eye of law. In our view it was the primary duty of the Ops to sent the defective meter, as alleged by the Ops, to the expert at first for examination, but without doing so the Ops being more vigilant have disconnected the electric connection of the complainant. It is true that for such deficiency in service the complainant has approached before this ld. Forum and in this way he had to suffer mental pain and agony and moreover he is running his daily life without electricity due to deficient service of the Ops. For this reason the complainant is entitled to get some amount towards compensation and he has also incurred some expenses towards litigation and for this reason he is also entitled go get some litigation cost from the Ops.
Going by the foregoing discussion, hence, it is
O r d e r e d
that the complaint is allowed on contest with cost. The complainant shall pay the outstanding dues for Rs. 722.51 paisa for the month of September-November 2013 along with late payment surcharge as per Electricity Act to the Ops within 15 days from the date of passing of this order. The complainant is further directed for making payment of reconnection charge as per Electricity Act for restoration of the electric connection to his remises. The Ops shall reconnect the electric connection of the complainant within 7 (seven) days from the date of making payment of the outstanding dues amounting to Rs. 722.51 paisa along with delay payment surcharge as well as reconnection charge positively. The Ops shall issue fresh average bill for the month of December 2013 to February 2014 claiming 140 units upon the complainant cancelling the inflated bill as issued by the Ops dated 15.10.2013. Upon receipt of the said bill the complainant shall pay the amount of the said average bill within due date. The Ops are further directed to issue average bill upon the complainant till removal of the defective-meter and replacement of a good and defect-free meter in the circuit. The Ops shall pay a sum of Rs. 1,000=00 towards compensation due to harassment and Rs. 500=00 as litigation cost to the complainant within 45 days from the date of passing of this judgment, in default; the complainant will be at liberty to put the entire order in execution as per provisions of law.
Let the plain copies of this final order/judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost as per Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
(Asoke Kumar Mandal)
Dictated and corrected by me. President
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Silpi Majumder)
Member
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Pankaj Kumar Sinha) (Silpi Majumder)
Member Member
DCDRF, Burdwan DCDRF, Burdwan
