State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Wbsedcl, Rep. By The Assistant ... vs Smt. Niva Balmiki on 27 June, 2016
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 First Appeal No. A/974/2015 (Arisen out of Order Dated 22/07/2015 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/78/2014 of District Uttar Dinajpur) 1. WBSEDCL, Rep. by the Assistant Engineer, Raiganj Group Electric Supply Mohanbati, P.O & P.S - Raiganj, Dist - Uttar Dinajpur. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Smt. Niva Balmiki W/o, Lt. Babon Balmiki, Vill & P.O - Bindole, P.S - Raiganj, Dist - Uttar Dinajpur. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. SAMARESH PRASAD CHOWDHURY PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. MRIDULA ROY MEMBER For the Appellant: Mr. Srijan Nayek , Ms. Arpita Saha , Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. Subrata Dey., Advocate ORDER Heard on - 16.06.2016 Judgement on - Monday, 27th day of June, 2016. PER HON'BLE SAMARESH PRASAD CHOWDHURY, PRESIDING MEMBER JUDGEMENT
Challenge in this Appeal u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is to the Final Order dated 22.07.2015 made by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Uttar Dinajpur at Raiganj (for short, Ld. District Forum) in Consumer Complaint no. 78/2014 whereby the complaint initiated by the respondent herein u/s 12 of the Act was allowed on contest without cost with direction upon the Appellant to issue fresh electric bill for the period June, 2014 to August, 2014 on average basis from the previous two years bills, to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation and also Rs.1,000/- as litigation cost.
The Respondent herein initiated the consumer complaint alleging that she is an old aged lady and has been living at village and Post - Bindole, P.S.- Raiganj having Service Connection being Consumer ID. No.432059394. Since the installation of service connection, she never consumed more than 150 units in three months. But suddenly the OP raised a huge bill amounting to Rs.53,082/- for the months of June, July and August, 2014 which shows that she has consumed 5588 units in three months. According to her, the bill raised by the OP is false, arbitrary and without any basis. Therefore, the Respondent approached the Ld. District with prayer for certain reliefs, Viz.-a) declaring the bill as raised by the OP is false, arbitrary and incorrect; b) direct the OP not to demand excessive bill as raised; c) a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental pain and harassment and Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost.
The Appellant being OP by filing a written version disputed the allegations levelled by the Complainant contending inter alia that a Technical Support Hand of WBSEDCL check up the meter in question and found the meter at good condition. However, it has been admitted by the OP that as per consumption unit of the Complainant, her normal bill was Rs.3,379/-.
After assessing the materials on record, the Ld. District Forum by the impugned order allowed the complaint on contest with certain directions, as indicated above which prompted the OP/WBSEDCL to prefer this appeal.
Mr. Alok Mukhopadhyay, Ld. Advocate appearing for the Appellant has submitted that in view of the provision of Electricity Act, 2003 and the Regulations thereunder, all billing disputes are to be referred to CGRO/RGRO and in case of dissatisfaction over the order, either of the parties may prefer an appeal before the Ld. Ombudsman. He has also submitted that keeping in view the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2009 CTJ 1062 (General Manager, Telecom - Vs. - M. Krishnan & Anr.), the Ld. District Forum should have dismissed the complaint being not maintainable.
Mr. Subrata Dey, Ld. Advocate for the Respondent, on the other hand has contended that since the dispute is a billing dispute, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court of India reported in AIR 2013 SC 2766 (UP Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. - Vs. - Anis Ahmad) and the decision of the National Consumer Commission reported in (2015) CJ 939 (Ashok Ojha - Vs. - Jharkhand State Electricity Board & Ors.) the Ld. Forum had jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute.
We have considered the rival contention of the parties. It is not in dispute that the Respondent herein is an old aged lady who spending her life on the basis of family pension having a service connection of WBSEDCL being Consumer Id. No.432059394. From the written version itself, it reveals that the normal bill of the Complainant for three months should not exceed Rs.3,377/-. It is also undisputed that there was nothing due or outstanding in respect of payment of bills. The entire dispute has cropped up owing to the bill for the months of June, July and August, 2014 amounting to Rs. 53,082/-. Relying upon the contents of the written version itself, there cannot be any doubt that the said bill was excessive in nature.
It may be pertinent to record that no allegation of theft or pilferage of electricity has ever been made by the Appellant against the Respondent. The Appellant never chose to send any notice to the Respondent for offences u/s 126 or under Sections 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003 either with respect to 'unauthorised use of electricity', 'pilferage' or 'theft' of electricity.
The decision referred by the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant in the case of General Manager, Telecom (Supra) has no manner of application in our case. In the referred case, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that when there is a special remedy provided in Section7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act regarding disputes in respect of telephone bills, then the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is by implication barred.
In Paragraph 47 of the case of UP Power Corporation Ltd. (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed that in case of inconsistency between the Electricity Act, 2003 and Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the provisions of Consumer Protection Act will prevail, but ipso facto it will not vest the Consumer Forum with the power to redress any dispute with regard to the matters which do not come within the meaning of 'service' as defined u/s 2(1)(o) or 'complaint' as defined u/s 2(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It has also been held that a complaint against assessment made by assessing officer u/s 126 or the against the offences committed u/s 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is not maintainable before a Consumer Forum. But the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 runs parallel for giving redressal to any person, who falls within the meaning 'consumer' u/s2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 if the consumer suffers from deficiency in services.
In Ashoke Ojha's case (Supra), relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in UP Power Corporation Ltd.'s case (Supra) the National Consumer Commission has observed that in case of billing dispute, a Consumer Forum has jurisdiction to adjudicate the same.
Therefore, giving due consideration to the submission advanced by the Ld. Advocates appearing for the parties, when it reveals that the disputed bill is exorbitant than one and further there was no notice served upon the Respondent for unauthorised use of electricity, pilferage or theft of electricity, we are of considered view that the Ld. District Forum was quite justified in passing the order impugned.
For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is dismissed on contest. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, however, we do not make any order as to costs in this appeal.
The judgement passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Uttar Dinazpur at Raiganj in CC No. 78/2014 is hereby affirmed.
The Registrar of this Commission is directed to send a copy of this order to the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Uttar Dinazpur at Raiganj for information. [HON'BLE MR. SAMARESH PRASAD CHOWDHURY] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MRS. MRIDULA ROY] MEMBER