State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Divisional Manager, Wbsedcl, ... vs Mr. Chittaranjan Paul on 3 December, 2012
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission West Bengal BHABANI BHAVAN (GROUND FLOOR) 31, BELVEDERE ROAD, ALIPORE KOLKATA 700 027 SC.CASE NO. : FA/470/2011 (Arisen out of judgement dt 17.08.2011 in Case No. CF 26/2010 of DCDRF, Circuit Bench, Alipurduar, Jalpaiguri) DATE OF FILING : 09.11.2011 DATE OF FINAL ORDER: 03. 12.2012 APPELLANTS 1. The Divisional Manager WBSEDCL, Alipurduar (D) Division P.O. Alipurduar Court P.S. Alipurduar Dist. Jalpaiguri. 2. The Station Manager Kamakhyaguri Group Electric Supply WBSEDCL P.O. & P.S. Kumargram Dist. Jalpaiguri. RESPONDENT Mr. Chittaranjan Paul S/o Sri Nagendra Ch. Paul Resident of Vill. Dakshin Parokata (Lal Pool) P.O. Brojer Kuthi P.S. Samuktala Dist. Jalpaiguri. BEFORE : MEMBER : MR. D.BHATTACHARYA MEMBER : MR. J.BAG FOR THE APPELLANT: Mr. S.Nayak, Mr. Alok Mukhopadhyay, Ld. Advocates FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr. Souvik Das, Ld. Advocate : O R D E R :
Mr. J.Bag, Ld. Member The present Appeal is directed against the order dated 17. 08. 2011 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum , Jalpaiguri, Circuit Bench at Alipurduar in their Case No. CF 26/2010 in the matter of Chittaranjan Paul (Complainant) vs- The Divisional Manager WBSEDCL, a Govt. of West Bengal Enterprise and Another (OPs) , the Ld. District Forum having directed the OPs to effect normal power supply within 15 days at the Complainants premises from the date of the order and to do such things as were prayed for by the complainant that is, to effect the normal power supply, to adjust the corresponding bill/bills, the excess amount already being paid by the complainant (Rs. 3183.00) and the regenerated bill raised by the OP (Rs. 1836.00) and also to compensate the complainant with Rs. 15000/- for his loss, mental pain and agony.
The Appeal case, in brief, is as follows:
The Complainant is a Consumer under WBSCDCL / OP No. 2 having Consumer No. 580358, Service connection No. PC 1545, Meter No. 58060507, who claimed to have paid electricity bills regularly upto February 2010. The bill dated 03.03.2010 for the months of March, April and May 2010 amounting to Rs. 3183/- appeared to be excessive in nature and accordingly a complaint was lodged with OP No. 2 on 09.03.2010, which was received on 10.03.2010. As requested for by the complainant, the OP No. 2 reported after inspection of the meter that the meter was technically good. On 17.04.2010 the OP No. 2 disconnected the supply line on ground of non-payment of bill but without any prior notice to the complainant . The bill being paid the line was reconnected. On 29.05.2010 another bill for the months of June, July and August amounting to Rs. 11231/- was received by the complainant, who received another notice on 16.06.2010 against an arrear bill of Rs. 3855/- for July 2010. The complainant requested for change of meter, which going unheeded, the arrear bill was not paid and the OP No. 1 disconnected the supply line. Subsequently a challenge meter being installed by the OP on payment of Rs. 50/- a regenerated bill amounting to Rs. 1836/- for the months of June , July and August was issued by the OP. The existing meter being proved to be defective the complainant instead of paying the regenerated bill, preferred to file a consumer complaint before the Ld. District Forum with charge of gross negligence on the part of the service provider OP No. 2. The case was contested by filing written version and affidavit on evidence wherein the OP emphasized that on the first occasion, that is, after the dispatch of the bill for the months of April, May and June 2010 a complaint about defect / fault in the meter being received, the meter was checked and was found to be technically good and the complainant, being intimated accordingly, paid the bill whereupon the disconnected line was reconnected. After dispatch of the bills for the months of June, July and August another complaint about malfunction in the meter being received a challenge meter was installed and a bill of lesser amount ( Rs. 1836/- ) was regenerated but the complainant having declined to pay such bill electricity line was disconnected in October 2010 . The Ld. District Forum in course of dealing with the case took up two main points for their consideration :(1) Whether the OPs had any deficiency in service in raising excessive bill / average bill against the disputed meter and also by disconnecting power supply in the complainants premises and (2) whether the complainant was entitled to get relief and compensation as prayed for. The Ld. District Forum, having gone through the written version / affidavit on evidence and other materials, observed that OP / (Appellant) did not adduce any technical report from technician to substantiate the statement that the meter was technically good as contained in their letter No. Kmges/ 104 dated 16.04.2010 and the Ld. District Forum below further observed that from installation of the challenge meter that recorded much less consumption of electricity compared to that recorded in the old meter, the complainants point was proved and thats why he did not pay the bill amounting to Rs. 1836/- and on that very ground of non-payment of bill the OP disconnected the service line . The Ld. Forum relying upon 1992 1 CPR 467 1992 ICPJ 226 (in this case huge amount of bill based on the assumption of defective meter since inception was made the basis for disconnection of supply of electricity which was construed as deficiency in service ) held that raising of the bill of Rs. 11231/- without examining the disputed meter through an Electrical Inspector and disconnection of electricity service on the ground of non-payment of such bill would have to be treated as deficiency in service and hence the impugned order .
Decision with Reasons:
We have gone through the Memorandum of Appeal together with all its enclosures including the copy of the petition of complaint, Examination-in -chief, affidavit of evidence by the complainant and BNAs submitted by both parties, perused the impugned order of the Ld. District Forum below and heard the Ld. Advocates appearing for both the Appellant and the Respondent. Lower Forum Case Records pertaining to the complaint proceedings have been consulted.
It reveals that the Respondent refused to pay the bill which was raised after installation of a challenge meter as per his request and the Appellant on that very ground disconnected the service line. The question of billing at such juncture became the point at issue the Respondent disputing the bill at hand. The Appellants version is that upon service of notice for non-payment of the regenerated bill the line was disconnected (MoA Page 3, Para. 2/a and BNA Page 2), though copy of such notice appears to have not been placed as evidence. The Respondent / Complainant at the very beginning disputed about the correctness of a bill in his letter dt. 09.03.2010 and again by another letter dtd. 17.05.2010. The Appellant, on the first occasion, informed the Respondent that after inspection and as per inspection report the meter was found to be technically good. The Ld. District Forums observation that no such inspection report was adduced as evidence bears testimony to the alleged deficiency in service. On the subsequent occasion the Appellant installed a challenge meter and raised a regenerated bill which was of lesser amount implying thereby that the old existing meter was defective and strengthening the fact that the Respondent/ Complainants assertion about defective meter was proved right. The Complainant declined to pay the regenerated bill probably believing that the regenerated bill would be adjusted automatically against the payment of the previous bill which was generated on the readings of the defective meter (Rs. 3813/- ) . No record, i. e. any written correspondence in that line, however, appears to have been produced before us. The Appellants action in regard to disconnection of the electricity is again not supported by issue of any notice of clear 15 days as per provision of Section 56 of Indian Electricity Act.
The Appellants have relied upon the judgement of the Honble Supreme Court in CESC Lt. vs- N M Banka and others to the effect that all matters relating to billing disputes are to be referred to the Electrical Inspector for proper adjudication of the bill and that as the statute provides for any particular relief including appeal no complaint is to be entertained under the Consumer Protection Act.
In our considered view the dispute in question from the very beginning is relating to correct billing. The Complainants grievance should have been referred to the Consumer Grievance Redressal Officer and in case of any dissatisfaction against the order of CGRO, either of the aggrieved parties could make an appeal before the appropriate authority. We have touched upon the deficiency in service apparent on the part of the Appellant, but restrain ourselves from jumping to a conclusion as might be contradictory to and in disregard of the legal provisions of the Electricity Act as taken note of by the Honble Supreme Court. The Appeal succeeds.
Hence ordered that The Appeal is allowed on contest without, however any cost. The impugned order is set aside.
MEMBER MEMBER