State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Station Manager, Tolafatak Customer ... vs Sri Avijit Bera on 16 March, 2018
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 First Appeal No. A/993/2017 (Arisen out of Order Dated 03/08/2017 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/115/2014 of District Hooghly) 1. Station Manager, Tolafatak Customer Care Centre, WBSEDCL, Chinsurah, Hooghly. 2. Divi. Manager, Chandernagore(D) Division, WBSEDCL Chandernagore, Hooghly. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Sri Avijit Bera Segunbagan, Dharampur, Chinsurah, Dist. Hooghly. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. SAMARESH PRASAD CHOWDHURY PRESIDING MEMBER For the Appellant: Mr. Srijan Nayek, Mr. Debesh Halder, Advocate For the Respondent: Dated : 16 Mar 2018 Final Order / Judgement
Date of Filing - 11.09.2017 Date of Hearing - 05.03.2018 The instant appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is at the behest of the Opposite Parties to impeach the Judgement/Final Order dated 03.08.2017 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hooghly at Chinsurah (for short, Ld. District Forum) in Consumer Complaint No. 115/2014. By the impugned order, the Ld. District Forum allowed the complaint lodged by the Respondent herein under Section 12 of the Act with the directions upon the Appellants to install a new/correct meter to the residence of complainant, to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- etc. The Respondent herein being Complainant lodged the complaint before the Ld. District Forum asserting that he is a bonafide tenant at Segun Bagan, Dharampur, P.O.+ P.S.- Chinsurah, Dist- Hooghly and enjoying the electric connection of West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (WBSEDCL) being Meter No.L0659970. The complainant has alleged that he received the bills for the month of July, August and September, 2012 at Rs.3,167/- per month totalling Rs.9,551.09P. The meter being defective, the complainant approached the Station Manager, Tolafatak CCC of WBSEDCL, Chinsurah for replacement of the existing meter. The complainant has also alleged that in the months between October and December, 2012 a bill of Rs.12,547/- was raised and thereafter on quarter basis, the bill was raised at Rs.11,155/-, Rs,8,7832/- and Rs.19,585/-. Thereafter, on protest one master meter was installed. According to the complainant, the meter being defective one, he made several complaints but all went in vain. Hence, the respondent approached the Ld. District Forum with prayer for several reliefs, viz. - (a) to install a new and correct meter in place of existing one; (b) to test the existing meter; (c) to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/-; (d) to pay litigation cost of Rs.20,000/- etc. The appellants being opposite parties by filing a written version have stated that on 14.08.2013 the complainant has made a complaint regarding the meter and on the basis of the same, a master meter was installed in the premises of the complainant on 17.08.2013. On 20.03.2014 it was found from reading of master meter and main meter that there is huge different of reading of the consumption. However, the complainant approached to Regional Grievances Redressal Officer (RGRO), Hooghly Region regarding the dispute of bill. Ultimately, on 16.06.2014 a final order was passed and on the basis of the said order, one proposal for regeneration of energy bill for the period from October, 2012 to September, 2013 sent to Division Officer for regeneration with the estimated unit and adjustment of the amount paid by the complainant during that period.
After assessing the materials on record, the Ld. District Forum by the impugned judgement and final order allowed the complaint with certain directions therein. To assail the same, the OPs have come up in this Commission with the present appeal.
Mr. Srijan Nayak, Ld. Advocate for the Appellants has submitted that as per Electricity Act, 2003 and the Regulations thereunder, a consumer has to move before RGRO in accordance with Notification No.55/WBERC dated 07.08.2013 which was published in the Calcutta Gazette. If anybody is dissatisfied with the order of RGRO, there is provision to move before the Ld. Ombudsman by filing an appeal. Therefore, when without exhausting the said procedure, the complaint was lodged it should have been dismissed. Ld. Advocate for the appellants has also submitted that as there was no deficiency, the Ld. District Forum should not have imposed a compensation of Rs.50,000/- which is a public money.
Mr. Arup Ratan Dutta Chowdhuri, Ld. Advocate for the Respondent, on the other hand has contended that the dispute is of two-fold -(1) a billing dispute which can be adjudicated by RGRO or Ombudsman, as the case may be; (2) the instant dispute relates to change of meter, which is amenable before a Forum constituted under the Act.
Undisputedly, Respondent was a tenant in respect of a premises lying and situated at Segun Bagan, Dharampur, P.O.+ P.S.- Chinsurah, Dist-Hooghly and he was enjoying electric connection from WBSEDCL being Consumer No.L0659970. The fact remains that the meter was found defective. On the basis of complaint of respondent, one master meter was installed. However, on comparison of two meters, it was found that there was huge difference of reading of the consumption. In such a situation, bill for the period from October, 2013 to December, 2013 was prepared on average basis after comparing reading of both the meters.
In any case, it is evident that the Respondent approached the RGRO being Acknowledgment No.370/2014. By a draft order, the RGRO proposed an order:
As it is already proved that the existing meter was faulty and showing exorbitant high consumption, so, the existing meter (No.L0659970) to be replaced with a technically perfect meter within 15 (fifteen) days, As excess unit has already claimed, so it is required to adjust the excess unit since the date of first appeal on 15.06.2012. Adjustment may be made in the way by regeneration of bills till then considering the cycle wise consumption of the healthy meter except the regenerated one.
Thereafter, on 16.06.2014 a final order was passed by RGRO with an opinion that the bill in question for the period of 15.06.2012 to 16.05.2013 to be regenerated considering the consumption unit in accordance to the consumption ratio of the existing meter and master meter based on the consumption period from 17.05.2013 to 03.04.2014. By the final order, it was made clear that if either party has any reservation against the order, they may file petition to any higher tier of WBSEDCL.
What I find from the record is that the Ld. District Forum has passed an order directing the OPs/appellants to install a new/correct meter to the residence of complainant/respondent immediately but did not take notice of the fact that the said order has already been passed by RGRO prior to filing of the petition of complaint before the Ld. District Forum. The record speaks that on 18.08.2017 the Station Manager, Tolafatak CCC has informed that as per order of RGRO, Hooghly Region meter of respondent being No.L0659970 has been replaced on 11.06.2014 with new meter No.L3202094. Therefore, the Ld. District Forum had no occasion to give a further direction to install a new/correct meter in place of defective meter as there was no apparent deficiency in services on the part of respondent.
So far as billing dispute is concerned, the Regulation No.3.5 of West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission published in Kolkata Gazette (Extra-Ordinary) dated 07.08.2013 being notification No. 55, has a statutory effect which provides -
"3.5.1(a) - In case, there is any dispute in respect of the billed amount, the consumer may lodged a complaint with the Grievance Redressal Officer or the Central Grievance Redressal Officer of the licensee and thereafter to the Ombudsman in appeal against the order of the Grievance Redressal Officer or the Central Grievance Redressal Officer, in accordance with the provisions of the concerned Regulations. In such a case, the aggrieved consumer, pending disposal of the dispute, may, under protest, pay the lesser amount out of the following two options: -
an amount equal to the sum claimed from him in the disputed bill, or an amount equal to the electricity charges due from him for each month calculated on the basis of average charge of electricity paid by him during the preceding six months, the amount so calculated provisionally as per Clause (ii) above by the licensee and tendered by the consumer shall be accepted by the licensee against that bill on provisional basis".
The provisions of Regulation 3.5.2 reads as under:-
"3.5.2. If any agreed consumer makes a provisional payment, as aforesaid, no penal measure including disconnection for non-payment shall be taken against him till the dispute is settled either at the level of the Grievance Redressal Officer or the Central Grievance Redressal Officer or the Ombudsman, as the case may be. However, imposition of a delayed payment, surcharge, if applicable shall not count towards a penal measure for this purpose".
In that perspective, if the Respondent was not satisfied with the order passed by the RGRO, had an opportunity to prefer an appeal before Ld. Ombudsman but without resorting the same, he had no reason to lodge a complaint before a Forum constituted under the Act. The Ld. District Forum should have inclined to intervene when the respondent approached the Ld. District Forum and the Ld. District Forum should have directed the consumer to avail of the statutory remedy. There is no mechanism before a Consumer Forum to decide about the correctness or otherwise of the bills.
In view of the above, I find that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law and as such I am constrained to interfere with the order impugned.
For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is allowed on contest. However, there will be no order as to costs.
The impugned Judgement/Final Order is hereby set aside.
Consequently, CC/115/2014 stands dismissed.
The Registrar of this Commission is directed to send a copy of this order to the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hooghly at Chinsurah for information.
[HON'BLE MR. SAMARESH PRASAD CHOWDHURY] PRESIDING MEMBER