Date of Filing: 22.02.2018 Date of Dispose: 07.04.3022.
Complainant: Dali Mallick, W/O Md. Faru Mondal, Flat No. S-18, Sankharipukur
HE, Block S, Burdwan, P.O. Sripally, P.S. Burdwan, Dist. Purba
Bardhaman, Pin-713103
-VERSUS -
Opposite Party: 1. West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, Burdwan
Sector 3, Customer Care Centre, represented by its Station Manager,
Baranilpur Bazar, P.O. Sripally, P.S. & Dist. Burdwan, Pin-713103.
2. West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd, represented by
its Chairman, Bidyut Bhawan, Block-C, 5th Floor, Sector-2, Salt Lake,
Kolkata-91.
Present : Mohammad Muizzuddeen -Hon’ble President.
: Shri Sailaranjan Das - Hon’ble Member.
Appeared for the Complainant : Sri Suvo Chakraborty Ld. Advocate.
Appeared for the Opposite Party : Sri Biswanath Nag. : Ld. Advocate.
FINAL ORDER
On 22.02.2018 the complainant Doli Mallick has lodged this complainant u/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the OP Nos. 1 & 2.
The case of the complainant, in brief, is that she is a consumer under the OPs through her electric Service Connection bearing No. 2659065, Consumer I.D. No. 512030316 related to Meter No. 87132 in the premises of the complainant. Since, installation of the meter, the OPs used to send bills as per meter reading and the complainant used to pay the bill amount in proper time. It is further case of the complainant that the OPs sent a bill of Rs.284/- vide bill dated 14.06.2014 for the period from March, 2014 to May, 2014 and the complainant paid the amount of the said bill on 24.06.2014 . But surprisingly, the OPs had not taken any meter reading nor sent any bill for a long period for which the complainant continuously requested the OPs for sending the bill after taking meter reading and lastly on 10.12.2014 one representative of the OPs took meter reading and thereafter, suddenly the meter was replaced by the OPs in the last week of December, 2014 vide meter No. B 2617566 and sent a bill dt. 15.01.2015 wherefrom the complainant came to know that the OPs raised bill for the months of June, 2014 to August, 2014 which is not a current bill, rather, it is a back-dated bill and the bill amount was Rs. 4544/- by showing the consumption meter unit was 792 (48 units vide New Meter + 744 units vide old Meter) of electricity and the OPs mentioned that “Meter B-2617566 is seems defective” and “Normal meter 000000000000087132 was replaced”. Thereafter, the complainant raised objection verbally as well as written representation on 22.01.2015 against the bill dt. 15.01.2015 and requested the OPs to correct the wrong bill as she never consumed such huge amount of electricity and since installation of new meter the complainant never consumed more than 80 units within a period of three months. The OPs only for harassing the complainant and for putting the bill in higher slab, sent such type of illegal bill. Then , the complainant applied before the Grievance Redressal Authority of the OPs situated at Moni Mart, Burdwan but after a long period and after several requests the complainant receive a bill along with an order bearing No. 913 dated 20.07.2015 from the OPs on 18.09.2017 wherein the Grievance Redressal Authority rejected the prayer of the complainant on 20.07.2015. Both the OPs and the Grievance Redressal Authority suppressed the same for a long period. The order dt. 20.07.2015 had only been passed for safeguarding the back of the OPs and it will also appear that OPs raised bill of Rs.6431 for the period from June, 2014 to May, 2017 and Rs.100/- towards reconnection and disconnection charge. To avoid disconnection, the complainant paid Rs. 2211/- on 18.09.2017 but she could not pay any further amount to the OPs. The Grievance Redressal Authority or the Higher Authority did not consider the bill dt. 15.01.2015 along with the bill dt. 18.09.2017 and instead of correcting the bill dt. 15.01.2015, the OPs sent another bill dt. 12.12.2017 by raising bill amounting to Rs. 5888/- for the period from December, 2017 to February, 2018. Moreover, the OPs, in spite of receiving several verbal as well as written requests, did not pay any heed to it and did not try to solve the dispute. The complainant further states that the OPs disconnected her electric service line without sending notice to her.
Upon this background, the complainant has prayed for directing the OPs to correct the bills dt. 15.01.2015 , 18.09.2017 and 12.12.2017 by holding the OPs liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices and also directing the OPs to refund the excess amount which the OPs extracted from the complainant and also directing the OPs to calculate bill as per correct tariff amount. The complainant also prayed for directing the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.50, 000/- to the complainant for mental pain, agony and harassment and litigation cost of Rs.20, 000/-.
The OP Nos. 1 & 2 have contested the case by filing written version denying all the material allegations, contending inter alia, that the complainant has no cause of action for the case. The complaint is vague, indefinite and mala-fide one and the complaint is barred by the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 and that the complaint is suffering from mis-joinder and non-joinder of the necessary parties and that the complaint is barred by law of limitation and that the complainant is not a ‘consumer’ under the OPs.
The specific case of the OPs is that the service connection having Consumer I.D. No. 512030316 stands in the name of the complainant in her occupied Flat bearing No. 18, Block-S Sankari Pukur Housing Estate, Burdwan and the energy bills have been raised in accordance with the meter reading as shown in the meter installed therein and the complainant paid all those bills without raising any dispute and the bill dt. 15.01.2015 for the period from June, 2014 to August, 2014 was raised on the basis of consumption as shown in the new installed meter as well as on the basis of final meter reading as shown in the old meter. The complainant did not pay the same though the bill was raised on the basis of actual consumption. On the basis of the prayer of the complainant before the office of the Divisional Manager, three installments were granted against the outstanding dues of Rs.6,431/- and after receipt of the installment bill dt. 18.09.2017 the complainant has paid the first installment amount with raising objection on 18.9.2017 and did not pay the rest amount. Subsequently, the bill dt. 12.12.2017 for the month of December, 2017 to January, 2018 on the basis of actual consumption by the complainant was raised and as the complainant has not paid the previous bills in due time, the LPSC as per W.B.E.R.C. Regulation as well as unpaid installment bill have been added with the said bill but the complainant did not pay the same. It is further stated that the complainant lodged a complaint against the bill dt. 15.01.2015 before the R.G.R.O., Burdwan, Regional Office, W.B.S.E.D.C.L. and after hearing the complainant as well as the Station Manager, the Ld. R.G.R.O passed an order dt. 20.01.2015 and held that the bill dt. 15.01.2015 was raised on actual consumption basis and the same was legal and justified. The complainant being well aware of the same, again moved before the R.G.R.O., Burdwan Regional Office against the self same bill and the R.G.R.O, after hearing both sides, passed an order thereby dismissed the petition of the complainant straight way as the said matter has been disposed of earlier. It is also stated that the complainant, challenging the legality and validity of the energy bill, has filed this case before the Ld. Forum whereas in view of the provisions of Section 42(5) and 42(6) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Regulations framed thereunder by the W.B.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) and Sec . 381 in Para 7 has clearly held as follows “ Complete machinery has provided for redressal of grievance of individual consumer and wherever a Forum/Ombudsman have been created, the consumer can only resort to these bodies for redressal of grievance and this ruling has not been over-ruled. So, in view of the above, this Ld. Forum has got no jurisdiction to try the instant case and prayed for dismissal the case with cost.
DECISION WITH REASONS
The complainant has filed evidence-on-affidavit but the OP Nos. 1 & 2 did not file any questionnaire though they are given chance to file the same and naturally to file the reply by the complainant does not arise. The OP Nos. 1 & 2 did not file any evidence-on-affidavit though they are given chance to do the same but both the parties filed Written Notes of Argument.
Now, we would like to discuss materials on record as to prove of the case of the complainant or to disprove the case of the complainant by the OPs. Firstly, the OPs did not put any question to the evidence of the complainant and accordingly the evidence of the complainant is intact as there is no question to shake evidence of the complainant. On the other hand, the OPs did not adduce any evidence with regard to the written version filed by them, So, the specific case of the OPs has not been proved by way of evidence, mere filing of written version does not take the place of proof.
It is the evidence of the complainant that on 10.12.2014 an agent of the OP took the meter reading after a long period but did not send any bill and on 15.01.2015 the OPs, without any prior intimation suddenly replaced previous meter bearing No. B-2617566 and a bill amount of Rs.4673.64 was sent for the months of June, 2014 to August, 2014 mentioning the new meter as a defective e one and the old meter has been replaced and the unit of energy was calculated as 744 units as per old meter and 48 units as per new meter. The complainant, thereafter, lodged a complaint before the Grievance Cell of the OPs against the huge bill dt. 15.01.2015 wherein Grievance Cell of the OPs ordered that the bill was raised as per actual meter reading and the reading was justified. But from the earlier bill it was seen that the bill was drawn for Rs.284/- as per the old meter which was paid by the complainant and when the bill dt. 15.01.2015 revealed that the new meter is seems defective, then how the Grievance Cell made conclusion by its order that the bill was raised as per actual meter reading and the reading is justified. Ld. Advocate for the complainant has rightly pointed out that the order No. 913 dated 20.07.2015 of the Grievance Cell of the OPs is illegal order. It is also the evidence of the complainant that the Grievance Cell of the OP rejected the complaint on 20.07.2015 and suppressed the same for a long time and another Bill dt. 18.09.2017 of Rs.6431/- for the period from June, 2014 to May 2017 and Rs.100/- for disconnection and re-connection charge was sent to the complainant and for avoiding disconnection the complainant paid Rs.2211/- to the OP on 18.09.2017 . But, again on 12.12.2017 the OP arbitrarily sent another bill of Rs.5888/- for the period from December, 2017 to February, 2018. But the complainant could not pay the same considering the earlier consumption of the electricity as well as the amount of the bill and the said consumption and subsequent drawing of the bill and consumption and replacement of old meter and substitution of new which is also defective one. It can be said that there was reasonable process to draw the bill which is huge one and are not parity that the consumption electricity, drawing and paying of bills by the complainant earlier and this evidence of the complainant could not be shaken by any cross-examination of the OPs as OPs did not file any questionnaires which is tantamount to cross-examination of the complainant. In the written argument filed by the OPs, it is stated that the complainant paid the amount of the first installment as ordered by the Grievance Cell abide by the decision of the Grievance Cell. She has no right to lodge the case before the Ld. Forum against the rest amount of the installments and subsequent bill amount of the consumption of electric energy but the evidence of the complainant revealed that for avoiding discussion, she paid Rs.2211 to the OPs on 18.09.2017 and being aggrieved by the order of the Grievance Cell, she again requested them to correct the bill amount and when the OPs did not pay any heed to her requests. But, finding no other alternative, she lodged this complaint before the Ld. Consumer Forum. But, it appears from her complaint as well as from argument that ultimately the OPs have disconnected the electric connection from the concerned pole which is still continuing and the complainant is compelled to stay without electricity till date. In the written argument against the OPs argued that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a ruling reported in (2007) SCC 381 in Para 7 has clearly held as follows, “Complete machinery has provided for redressal of grievance of individual consumer and wherever a Forum/Ombudsman have been created, the consumer can only resort to th3ese bodies for redressal of grievances.”
Ld. Advocate for the complainant has argued in the written argument that the OPs in their written version has alleged that the present case is not maintainable before the Ld. Forum for the provisions of the Electricity Act, but as the Consumer Protect ion Act provides additional remedy to the consumers and the said Ac t is not in any derogation but in addition to that. So, the case of the complainant is well maintainable before this Ld. Forum.
According to this factum of the case and admission of the OPs that the complainant again and again submitted prayers before the OPs by ventilating his cause raising illegality of the above bills, but the OPs did not pay any heed to her requests and she also availed herself of the forum of the OPs, namely as Grievance Cell and he became prejudiced by the order of the Grievance Cell and lastly she took recourse to the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act by lodging this case. As such according to the Sec.3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the Consumer Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complainant. In this connection, the Ld. Advocate for the complainant has cited an order dt. 01.06.2015 of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), New Delhi in connecti9on with the Revision Petition No. 67 of 2010, wherein the Hon’ble NCDRC has observed that Respondents/JSEB did not choose to send any notice to the petitioner herein for offences under Section 126 or under Sections 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003 either with respect to “unauthorized use of electricity”, “pilferage” or “theft” of electricity . In the absence of any such assessment done by the Respondents under the afore-mentioned Sections, the Hon’ble NCDRC are of the considered view that the Consumer For a has jurisdiction to adjudicate this matter.
In the present case, the OPs did not choose to send any notice to the consumer herein for offences under Section 126 or under Sections 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003 either with respect to “unauthorized use of electricity”, “pilferage” or “theft” of electricity. In the absence of any such assessment done by the OPs under the afore-mentioned Sections, this Consumer Forum has jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter.
Ld. Advocate for the complainant also cited an order dt. 19.12.2013 of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), New Delhi, in connection with Revision Petition No. 3114 of 2012 wherein the Hon’ble NCDRC has held that “ we are of constrained to conclude that the electricity consumption of domestic meter must be between 100-150 units only and the disproportionate bills were issued by OP. It is true that the old meter was changed because it was running very fast. Hence, the OP had unnecessarily charged excessive electricity bill. Therefore, there is deficiency in service on the part of OP”.
In the instant case, the OPs without giving any prior intimation to the complainant suddenly changed the old meter without any reason and substituted a new meter and admitted by them that it seems defective. Therefore, the drawing of bill earlier was according to the consumption of energy and the complainant paid the said bill amount but subsequently, the OP drew huge amount of bill for consumption of huge units and the said bills were dis-proportionate bills. Hence, the OPs had unnecessarily charged excessive electric bill. Therefore, there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and foregoing discussions, we are of the opinion that the complainant has successfully proved the case. The OPs are liable for their deficiency in service and the bills dt. 15.01.2015, 18.09.2017 and 12.12.2017 should be corrected by way of issuance of fresh bills as per earlier average consumption of electric energy taking into consideration the earlier average units as paid by the complainant.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
That the Consumer Complaint No. 31/2018 be and the same is hereby allowed on contest against the OP Nos. 1 & 2.
The OP Nos. 1 & 2 are directed to correct the electric bills of the complainants dt. 15.01.2015, 18.09.2017 and 12.12.2017 and to issue fresh bills after calculation of correct tariff amount and the amount already paid by the complainant for those bills, be adjusted with the fresh bills.
The OPs are also directed to restore electric connection of the complainant by installing a new meter by removing the defective one.
The OPs are also directed to comply with the order of this case within 1(one) month from the date of this order.
Let a copy of this final order be supplied to the parties on free of cost.
Dictated & corrected by me.
President
DCDRC, Purba Bardhaman.
Member President
DCDRC, Purba Bardhaman. DCDRC, Purba Bardhaman
