Date of Filing: 25.07.2018 Date of Disposal: 25.04.2023
Complainant :Bimal Chandra Biswas, S/o-Lt. Ashutosh Biswas, resident of Palla Camp No.1, P.O.-Palla, P.S.-Memari, Dist.-Paschim Bardhaman, Pin-713151, Phone – 8670598658.
-VERSUS -
Opposite Party :1. West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd., Saktigarh Customer Care Centre, represented through its Station Manager, having its Office at Saktigarh, P.O.-Saktigarh, P.S.-Burdwan, Dist.-Purba Bardhaman, Pin- 713124.
2. The Chairman, West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. Having its office at Bidyut Bhawan, Block-C, 5th Floor, Sector-2, Salt Lake, Kolkata-91.
Present : Mohammad Muizzuddeen -Hon’ble President.
: Mrs. Lipika Ghosh - Hon’ble Member.
: Mr. Atanu Kr. Dutta. - Hon’ble Member.
Appeared for the Complainant : Suvro Chakraborty Ld. Advocate
Appeared for the Opposite Parties : Biswanath Nag Ld. Advocate
F I N A L O R D E R
The Complainant has filed an application u/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 against the O.Ps. The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant is a consumer of the O.Ps; vide Consumer I.D. No. 517102348, installation No.10352257 since 2006. The complainant through two points of outlet, one for lightning a bulb and another is for running a fan in his room, enjoying the electricity since installation and paying bill amount to the O.Ps without any fail. The complainant stated that on 03.04.2011 the Meter bearing No.E40359 became damage due to natural calamity and storm. Since then the O.Ps did not change the meter of your complainant till 16.08.2015 but during this long span of time the O.Ps never stopped themselves from sending bills to your complainant. The said meter is a domestic meter. The complainant for several times verbally as well as by submitting letter dated 25.09.2014, 23.02.2015, 18.05.2015, 01.06.2015 intimated the O.P. regarding damage meter. The O.Ps neither change the meter since 2011 nor declared the meter as defective one. Moreover the O.Ps sends bills irregularly as per their wish. The complainant received one bill dated 12.02.2015 for the amount of Rs.585/- for 100 unit of electricity and paid the same on 18.02.2015 to the O.Ps with objection. Complainant received another bill dated 11.05.2015 of Rs.179/- where the O.Ps mentioned the unit as 30.00. In those bills the O.Ps never declared the Meter bearing No.E40359 as defective meter. Therefore the complainant restrained himself from paying any amount to the O.Ps. The complainant begs to submit further that suddenly on 16.08.2015 the men and agent of the O.Ps by entering into the premises of the complainant changed the meter bearing No.01668251. In this context, it is pertinent to be mentioned here that O.Ps neither sends any bill to the complainant from 11.05.2015 to 17.11.2015 nor declared the meter as defective one. On or after 17.11.2015 the complainant received one bill from the O.Ps and came to learn that the O.Ps raised the said bill for the amount of Rs.470/- and mentioned the meter bearing No.E40359 as defective meter but the O.Ps for the first time mentioned the unit 40.00 in the column estimated/adjusted unit but previous and present reading as per their wish. It is important to mention here that if the Meter E40359 is defective how it shows reading since 2011 to 11.05.2015 and he submitted another written objection before the O.P. No.1 on 24.11.2015 and requested for several times but they did not correct the bills.
It is further stated by the complainant that after changing the Meter, the O.Ps instead of correcting the previous bills send another bill dated 02.02.2016 by raising bill amount of Rs.478/- and mentioned Rs.379.74/- as outstanding amount. It is pertinent to mention here that the O.Ps raised such bill amount for one unit electricity consumed by the complainant but the calculation of bill amount is not clear to the complainant. The O.Ps again send another bill dated 03.05.2016 which will appear that the O.Ps claimed Rs.673/- from the complainant of the said bill. The O.Ps also mentioned that Rs.576.31/- as outstanding amount and in that bill also the calculation bill amount and outstanding amount is not clear. But in spite of that the complainant again paid Rs.770/- along with disconnection charge of Rs.100/- to the O.Ps on 05.08.2016 which was received by O.Ps by calculating Rs.673/- plus Rs.32/- X 3 equals to 96/- plus Rs.100/-But the O.Ps again send bill dated 07.02.2017 by raising bill amount of Rs.273/- and by showing Rs.232.09/- as outstanding amount. After receive the bill, the complainant became surprised as the O.Ps show the outstanding amount Rs.232/- whereas unit consumed by your complainant from 25.10.2016 to 07.02.2017 was Zero unit which is not fare. The complainant on 04.02.2016, 10.02.2017, 25.02.2017 and 02.08.2017 submitted written request before the O.Ps but neither he has received any relief not the O.Ps have taken any step to solve the disputes.
Upon this background, the complainant prayed for directing the O.Ps to correct the bill dated 07.02.2017 and subsequent bills by holding them liable for conducting deficiency in service and unfair trade practice along with a direction to the O.Ps to issue fresh bills after conducting outstanding amount of Rs.232.09/-. He also prayed for direction to the O.Ps to pay an amount of Rs.30,000/- as compensation and Rs.20,000/- as litigation cost.
The O.Ps have contested the case by filing W/V knowing all the material allegations contending, inter alia, that that the complainant is vague, mala fide, motivated and speculative one and that the complainant has no cause of action and that the case is barred under the provision of the Electricity Act, 2003 and that the complaint suffers from misjoinder and non-joinder of the necessary parties and that the complainant are liable to strict proof the case.
The specific case of the O.Ps is that since installation the energy bills were raised sometimes on meter reading basis and sometimes on the basis of fixed charge and other charges claimed as W.B.S.E.R.C. regulation when the meter shows no consumption and accordingly the bill dated 07.02.2017 for the Months of Feb, 2017 to April, 2017 was raised on the basis fixed charge and other charges as per regulations amounting to Rs.273/-including outstanding dues of Rs.232.09/- but the complainant in spite of receipt of the bill dated 07.02.2017 did not pay the same and just to evade the payment of the legitimate claim of the O.Ps and to harass these O.Ps filed the instant case which is fit to be dismissed with costs and these O.Ps crave leave to file the total OSD at the time of hearing and that the complainant challenged the legality and validity of the energy bills raised by the O.Ps has filed the captioned case before the Ld. Forum whereas in view of the provision of Section 42(5) & Section 42(6) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and Regulation made by the W.B.S.E.R.C. if there is any grievance against any energy bill that should be ventilated before the Regulatory Commission or before the person or Authority empowered by the said Act and they are the Statutory Authority and the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a ruling reported in (2007) 8 SEC Page 381 in Para 7 has clearly held as follows “Complete machinery has been provided for redressal of grievances of individual consumers and wherever a Forum/Ombudsman have been created the consumers can only resort of these bodies for redressal of grievances”
-: D e c i s i o n w i t h R e a s o n s :-
In order to prove the case, the complainant filed evidence-on-affidavit and Xerox copies of the documents. The complainant also filed written notes of argument (W.N.A.). The written versions of the O.Ps have been treated as evidence on affidavit. The O.Ps also filed written notes of argument (W.N.A.).
Perused the complaint, written versions, evidence on affidavit, Xerox copies of documents and written notes of argument. From the evidence on record of the complainant along with the prayer of the complainant in the complaint, it appears that he prayed for correction of the bill dated 07.02.2017 and subsequent bills by holding the O.Ps liable for that conduct of the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and issuance of fresh bill after deducting outstanding amount of Rs.232.09.
No document is forthcoming so that the earlier meter being No.E40359 was defective meter except the mere statement of the complainant and it is admitted fact that subsequently the meter has been changed by the O.Ps by new meter bearing No.01668251. But from the bill dated 07.02.2017 it appears that the consumption of electric unit was Zero but the bill amount was Rs.273/- and subsequent bill dated 07.05.2017 is in the same nature but amount of the bill was 770/- including the outstanding dues and the bill dated 13.08.2017 and bill dated 06.11.2017 are in the same nature showing total unit consumption of electricity energy is 11 units and amount is 870/- including outstanding dues Rs.453.64/-. These four bills sows that there are errors on the face of the bill. Accordingly those bills should be corrected by the O.Ps and certainly the question of issuance of fresh bill is arisen.
According to settled principle of law, the Consumer Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the case u/S 3 of the C.P. Act, 1986 which clearly indicates that the provision of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force and the complainant is the consumer under the O.Ps.
Ld. Advocate for the complainant has argued in the written notes of argument that “Regarding the allegation of the opposite parties regarding the non-maintainability of consumer complaint and jurisdiction of this Ld. Commission/Forum your complainant wants to rely upon a Judgement so passed by HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.5466 OF 2012 [U.P. POWER CORPORATION LTD. & OTHERS-VS- ANIS AHMED, DECIDED ON 01/07/2013] where the Hon’ble Apex Court pleased to held that “In case of inconsistency between The Electricity Act, 2003 and The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the provisions of Consumer Protection Act will prevail” and “ The Electricity Act, 2003 and The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 runs parallel for giving redressal to any person, who falls within the meaning of consumer u/s 2(1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986………….”. This Commission is fully agreed with the submissions of the Ld. Advocate for the complainant.
From the submissions of both sides, it appears that due to bill amount on the basis of fixed charge and other charges, as per norms, the mistake may be happened. Considering the peculiar circumstances of the case no compensation and litigation cost can be awarded. But it is also a fact that the complainant did not go to the respective grievance cells of the O.Ps
Under the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the complainant has been able to prove his case against the O.Ps and the O.Ps committed deficiency in service. As a result the suit succeeds.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
that the case be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.Ps but without any cost.
The O.Ps are directed to correct the bill dated 07.02.2017 and subsequent bills as mentioned in the findings of the order and issue the fresh bills to the complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of the order.
Let a copy of this order be supplied to the parties on free of cost.
Dictated & corrected by me.
President
D.C.D.R.C., Purba Bardhaman.
Member Member President
D.C.D.R.C., Purba Bardhaman. D.C.D.R.C., Purba Bardhaman. D.C.D.R.C., Purba Bardhaman.
