State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Officer-In-Charge, Teghoria, ... vs Jamat Ali, Son Of Late Faim Box Mondal, ... on 11 July, 2013
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission West Bengal BHABANI BHAVAN (GROUND FLOOR) 31, BELVEDERE ROAD, ALIPORE KOLKATA 700 027 S.C. CASE NO FA/175/2012 (Arisen out of Order dated 21/07/2011 in Case No.105(S)/2010 of District North 24 Parganas, North 24 Parganas DF) DATE OF FILING : 24.04.2012 DATE OF ORDER: 11.07.2013 APPELLANTS : 1. The Officer-in-Charge, Teghoria, Gr. E/Supply, W B S E D C L, Akhayvihar, 1st Floor, T-98, Teghoria, P.S. Baguihati, Dist-North 24-Parganas. 2. The Manager, Teghoria, Gr. E/Supply, W B S E D C L, Akhayvihar, 1st Floor, T-98, Teghoria, P.S. Baguihati,Dist-North 24-Parganas. RESPONDENT : 1. Jamat Ali, Son of Late Faim Box Mondal, Vill. Mondalgathi, P.O. Airpot, P.S. Baguihati, District-North 24 Parganas BEFORE HONBLE MEMBER :
Sri Debasis Bhattacharya.
HONBLE MEMBER : Sri Jagannath Bag.
FOR THE APPELLANTS : 1.
Mr. Srijan Nayak, Ld. Advocate, FOR THE RESPONDENT : 1.
Mr. Ramendra Nath Caudhury , Ld. Advocate ________________________________________________________________________ Sri Debasis Bhattacharya , Member Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment dated 21.07.2011 in Case No. 105(S)/2010 passed by the Ld. District Forum, North 24 Parganas, the OPs thereof have preferred this appeal.
By the impugned judgment, the said Ld. District Forum has allowed the case in part on contest with cost. The OP has been directed to treat the bill dated 25.02.2010 as cancelled. The OP has been further directed to pay Rs.2,000/- towards litigation cost within one month from the date of the judgment.
The case of the Complainant/Respondent in his petition of complaint is that he is a consumer of the OPs having Service Connection No. GPD/3346, Consumer Serial No. (Old) LL 378090, Meter No. (New) 033951, Consumer No. 8023230 for domestic purpose in his residential house, and is regularly paying the electric bill till January, 2010. He received one bill dated 25.02.2010 from the OP demanding Rs.3,80,192/- (Rupees three lakhs eighty thousand one hundred ninetytwo) for the month of February-April, 2010, which is illegal and without any basis, and for illegal gain and not binding upon him. Being very astonished, he went to the Office of the OPs to enquire the matter, but without any fruitful result. Accordingly, he sent one Advocates notice dated 11.03.2010 through Advocate Ayesha Sultana to the OP No.2 requesting to verify the meter and to take necessary action within 30 days. Further, he received a notice dated 12.03.2010 from the OP No.1 demanding Rs.1,30,099/- (Rupees one thirty thousand ninetynine) for the month of February, 2010, otherwise they will disconnect the electric connection without any notice. It is also mentioned that previously he received average bill per month of less than Rs.1,500/-, which he paid. He repeatedly visited the office of the OPs and pointed out the irregularities of the bill dated 25.02.2010, but the OP No.2 asked him to pay the entire amount of such bill. He also made several attempts with all papers and requested for issue of rectified bill, but the OPs did not take any action. There is gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, for which the Complainant suffered huge mental harassment and agony. So, the complaint case.
On the other hand, the case of the OPs/Appellants in their W.V. is denial of the claims and contentions of the Complainant, and that the actual consumption period of the disputed bill of Rs.3,80,192/- (Rupees three eighty thousand one hundred ninetytwo) is from January, 2003 to January, 2010, but as the maximum 24 months tariff benefit can be given through the computerized billing software of the WBSEDCL, the bill period is showing as February, 2008 to January, 2010. After receiving the energy bill, the Complainant came to the office of the OPs expressing his dissatisfaction regarding the bill and after discussion it was decided to install a check meter in series with the existing meter in presence of the Complainant and the OP officials to determine the performance of the existing meter and the consumer was assured not to make the payment until the comparison result of both the maters come. Accordingly, the check meter was installed on 13.03.2010 at the premises of the Complainant in his presence. In the meantime, the OPs received a notice on 22.03.2010 from Sm. Ayesha Sultana, Ld. Advocate on behalf of the Complainant to verify the matter and to reply within 30 days from the receipt of the same, otherwise legal action against the OPs will be initiated. It is evident that before taking any decision regarding calibration of the check meter, the Complainant filed the case. From the records, it is found that the Complainant consumed 7733 units for the bill month 05/01 to 07/01 and 3651 units for the bill month 08/10 to 10/10 and also paid those bills. As the premises of the Complainant could not be identified by the new Meter-reader of the OPs, only minimum charges by raising average bills of 200/600/500 units were claimed from the Complainant. Subsequently, when the premises of the Complainant was identified, the meter reading was taken on 14.07.2009 as 59911 units and on 03.11.2009 as 66646 units which stands for 60.133 units per day consumption of energy by the Complainant. Accordingly, one check meter was installed on 11.11.2009 in presence of the consumer and removed on 06.12.009. After getting the comparison result of both the existing and the check meter, the OPs raised the present bill on 25.02.2010 stating the period from 02/08 to 04/10, but the said 55377 units is an accumulated consumption by the Complainant for the period from 01/03 to 01/10. The present bill is not at all fictitious or manufactured, but was raised on the basis of actual meter reading. At the time of discussion regarding installation of check meter, the Complainant and the OPs agreed to maintain status quo till calibration result of the existing meter, and so there is no question of disconnection of service or threatening by the OPs. After removal of the check meter, performance of the existing meter had been determined and found that the bill already generated is correct. Thus, they sought for dismissal of the case.
It is to be considered if the impugned judgment suffers from any anomaly so as to reverse the same.
Decision with reasons.
Ld. Advocate for the Appellants has submitted that it has become crystal clear after installation of the check meter that the bill raised by the Appellants for electrical consumption by the Respondent was a correct one. So, there is nothing to be aggrieved by the Respondent. However, in the event of any dissatisfaction, the Respondent should have ventured to come to the authorized body for redressal. There is less bonafideness of the Respondent, who on receipt of average bills took its advantage and did not agitate at that time. In the case of billing dispute, the same is to be addressed to the Grievance Redressal Officer, and thereafter an appeal may be preferred to the Ombudsman. He has cited a decision of this Commission in FA No. 420/2009.
On the contrary, Ld. Advocate for the Respondent has supported the impugned judgment.
It has been the contention of the Appellants that the questioned bill dated 25.02.2010 is based upon actual consumption and that to redress the grievance of the Respondent, a check meter was installed on 13.03.2010 in the premises of the Respondent in his presence, but without waiting for the result of the verification, the Respondent hurriedly sent an Advocates notice and thereafter filed the complaint case before the Ld. District Forum, which is unethical and without any justification. It is found that the complaint case before the Ld. District Forum is a premature attempt on the part of the Respondent, that too misconceived. As the matter stands after the result of verification of energy consumption as noted in the check meter vis--vis the original meter of the Respondent, if still any grievance is there for the Respondent to make, it should have been done before the Grievance Redressal Officer as per the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission Regulations, 2004. The case referred by the Ld. Advocate for the Appellants duly fits in the facts and circumstances of the case. So, it was not proper for the Ld. District Forum to declare the bill dated 25.02.2010 as cancelled, which was beyond its jurisdiction as well as expertise. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case and position of law, the Respondent has to approach before the appropriate authority for redressal of his grievance, namely, the concerned Grievance Redressal officer.
In the result, the appeal succeeds.
Hence, Ordered, That the appeal be and the same is allowed on contest but without any order as to cost. The impugned judgment is hereby set aside. The complainant case stands dismissed.
MEMBER MEMBER