DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
BIRBHUM (SURI).
C. F. CASE NO.-CC/77/O/2009
PETITIONER =Vs. = O.P.s
Krishna Sarkar, West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd.,
W/o.- Arup Sarkar, Rep. by The Station Manager, W.B.S.E.D.C.L.,
Vill.- Mollarpur, Irrigation Colony, Mollarpur Gr. Elec. Supply, P.O.- Mollarpur,
P.S.- Mayureswar, Birbhum. P.S.- Mayureswar, Birbhum.
PRESENT :- Golam Mahiuddin Midhya, ——– President.
:- Miss. Bula Koley, ——————- Sr. Member.
:- Dr. Soumen Sikder, —————– Member.
Date of Filing :- 30.12.2009
Date of Disposal :- 31.03.2011
J U D G E M E N T
This an application filed Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act. 1986 (as amended upto date) against the O.P.
The petitioner’s case in brief is that she is a bonafide consumer of electricity having S/C No. Dom/255, Consumer No. H02033 under the O.P. She came on paying all the electric bills regularly and she is/was never a defaulter. But, all on a sudden the O.P. sent to her a letter vide Memo No. SM/MP/I.A/832 dated 24.09.2009 and thereby claimed a sum of Rs. 5,070/- as arrear of energy charges. Such claim is bad and against the principle of natural justice. The petitioner thereafter requested the O.P. time and again in writing and also by personal contact to cancel the bill, but her requests have been turned down. Hence, this case.
The O.P. contested the case by filing written version. It has been contended that the present application is not maintainable in this Forum. Every dispute involving amount of bill has to be referred to and determined by the authority i.e. the Electrical Inspector as per the Electricity Act. That apart, an internal audit was conducted by Mr. Amit Roy and Co. in respect of service connection of the petitioner/consumer and on inspection it was found that due to defective meter recording of energy consumption was wrong and that resulted in loss of revenue to the O.P. Accordingly, there was reassessment of charges for the period from February 2008 to July 2009 and the consumer was asked to pay Rs. 5,070/-. There is no irregularity or deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. So, the case is liable to be dismissed with cost.
In order to prove her case the petitioner examined herself as P.W.1. The documents submitted by her have been proved and marked as Exbt. 1 to 13 respectively. She has also been cross-examined at length.
Contd…2/-
-:: ( 2 ) ::-
Similarly, the O.P. side examined one Asim Sarkar, Station Manager, W.B.S.E.D.C.L. Mollarpur as O.P.W.1. The document filed by the O.P. has been proved and marked as Exbt. A. The O.P.W.1 has also been cross-examined in full.
We have heard Ld. Lawyers of the contending parties. Also we have perused the complaint, Written Version and the documents on record filed by both the parties. As a matter of fact, the petitioner cannot be held a defaulter by any means because, the money receipts concerning and attached to Exbt. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 clearly show that she has paid the bills regularly immediately preceding the disputed bill-period. It is a rule of Law that nobody is to suffer for the fault which is not of his own, but of some other else. May it be or not that the meter installed by the O.P. at the petitioner’s premises went on recording wrongly and for the same reason the O.P. company sustained loss of revenue. Obviously, this is by no means a fault or flaw on the part of the petitioner for which she must be penalized. Of course the O.P. Company has the statutory right to realise its dues by resorting to process of Law and natural justice. It can not arbitrarily and whimsically come forward to take action in such matter without any prior notice to and beyond the knowledge of the consumer concerned. The O.P.W.1 in his cross-examination is found to state that he can not say whether or not the report of audit was sent to the consumer. He also admits that, it is obligatory on the part of the licensee to send the audit report to the consumer.
Here in this case, no where it has been urged or proved by the O.P. that due prior notice before inspection was given to the consumer. Also there is no proof that the O.P. Company had installed a check meter for the purpose of comparing the recording of energy with the help of both the meters. The O.P. can hold that the meter installed was not correct and was not correctly recording the energy only if the check meter gave a different and excess reading.
During argument Ld. Lawyer for the O.P. submitted that such a matter of dispute can only be resolved by the electrical Inspector, not by this Forum. In this context we are to say that Section 3 of the C.P. Act. 1986 confers jurisdiction to this Forum to entertain and decide such matter. Moreover, when there is abuse of the principles of natural justice this Forum has also the right to resist the said irregularity. The O.P. Company issued revised bill claiming excess charges on the ground that meter was not giving correct reading. But, it did not serve any show cause notice upon the consumer/complainant before revising the bill, nor prior intimation of checking was given to the complainant. Even copy of checking report was also not given to the complainant/consumer. It is a gross violation of the principles of natural justice as-well-as of clause 23 of the conditions of supply. It has been thus observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 9651 of 2003 decided on 19.10.2010. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the issuance of the impugned revised bill is null and void.
Under the above circumstances, the case stands.
Contd…3/-
-:: ( 3 ) ::-
Proper fees have been paid.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
that, the Consumer Case No. CC/77/2009 be and the same is allowed on contest. The letter/bill of the O.P. vide their memo No. SM/MP/I.A/832 dated 24.09.2009 amounting to Rs. 5,070/- is hereby cancelled. The O.P. is directed not to disconnect the service line of the petitioner on the basis of the impugned bill.
Considering the circumstances, we are not inclined to award any other relief.
A copy of this order be supplied to the parties each free of cost immediately for guidance and compliance.
(Dr. S. Sikder) (Miss. B. Koley) (G. M. Midhya)
Member Sr. Member President