DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24-PARGANAS, JUDGES’ COURT, ALIPORE, KOLKATA-700 027
C.C. CASE NO._336 OF 2008_
DATE OF FILING: 24.12.2008 DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT_03.11.2009
________________________________________________________________________
Present : President : Dipak Shyam Roy
Member(s) : Amitabha Roy Chowdhury & Sharmi Basu
________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINANT : Jyotirmoy Purkait, Village Bagdah, P.O. Durgapur, P.S.
Baruipur, South 24 Parganas
-versus-
O. P. / O. PS : 1) Assistant Engineer, West Bengal State Electricity
Distribution Company Limited, Baruipur Group Electric
Supply, South 24 Parganas
2) WBSEDCL, Bidyut Bhawan, Salt Lake, Kolkata
________________________________________________________________________
>> J U D G E M E N T <<
________________________________________________________________________
The complainant Sri Jyotirmoy Purkait of Village Bagdah P.S. Baruipur filed this complaint against the O.Ps on the ground of deficiency in service. The gist of the complaint is that the complainant was enjoying an electricity connection in his house since 1974 and was paying electricity bills regularly. But the O.P raised a bill of Rs. 27,111/- for the period May, 2007 to July, 2007 against his connection . He had drawn the attention of O.P-1 by a letter dated 16.8.2007 against this abnormal bill and complained that the meter was defective. But the O.P-1 by his letter dt. 27.9.2007 intimated that the meter was O.K and asked him to pay the billed amount to avoid disconnection of the line. Hence this complaint. The complainant prayed to this Forum for disclaiming the above bill of Rs. 27,111/- for the period May, 2007 to July, 2007 as null and void and to replace the defective meter and an order to pay at average rate of consumption. He has also claimed for refund of the excess amounts paid by him as electricity bill for the subsequent months of August, 20-07 to October, 2007, February 2008 to April,2008 and May, 2008 to July, 2008. The O.Ps have contended in their written version that the case relates to billing dispute and hence the same is not maintainable in this Forum. The O.Ps have further contended that the bill for May, 2007 to July, 2007 was raised by them as per meter reading taken on 13.7.2007. After receiving the complaint from the consumer they made inspection of the meter by the technical staff and the meter was found in good condition . The meter was installed in 2003 and there had been wrong posting in their blue book on 10.1.2007 regarding the units consumed. In the blue book 4605 units were posted ,wherein the actual consumption was 7605 units. As a result consumption units had accumulated during 18.4.2006 to 14.4.2007 . So according to the O.Ps there is no dispute regarding the bill of the consumer. Both the complainant and the O.Ps have submitted their evidence by affidavits. Decision of the Forum : We have examined the documents filed by the parties and heard their ld. Counsels. The issues to be decided here are : Whether the complainant is a consumer under the C.P Act and whether the complaint is maintainable in this Forum. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the O.P WBSEDCL, in raising the bill of Rs. 27111/- for the period May, 2007 – July, 2007 and Whether the relief as claimed by the complainant is to be allowed by this Forum. We shall discuss these points serially in the order as above. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi had discussed the question of maintainability of the complaints on electricity in a Consumer Fora in its decision in the case Jharkhand State Electricity Board & Another Vs. Anwar Ali decided in April, 2008 [ Reported in 2008 CTJ 837 (CP) (NCDRC)]. Majority decision of the Hon’ble National Commission is as follows: (1) Under Sec. 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act a person who obtains or avails of any service including the supply of electrical or other energy is a “Consumer” entitled to file a complaint of deficiency in service before a Consumer Forum. (2) Consumer Forums have jurisdiction to entertain a complaint against a final assessment order passed by the concerned assessing officer under Sec. 126 (3) Jurisdiction of the consumer Forums is not barred by any provisions of the Electricity Act and is expressly saved under its Section 173 read with Section 174 and 175 and (4) Consumer Forums have no jurisdiction to interfere with the criminal proceedings or with a final order passed by any special court constituted under Sec. 153 of Electricity Act or for any civil liability determined under Sec. 154 thereof. Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.C. Jain in his separate order dt. 16.4.2008 has been pleased to hold as follows: (1) Consumer Forums do have jurisdiction to entertain the complaints filed by a consumer of electricity alleging any defect or deficiency in the supply of electricity or unfair trade practice by the electricity supplier , (2) provisions of Sections 126 and 127 of the Electricity Act are not inconsistent with the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act and therefore there is no need to resort to the provisions of Sec. 173 and 174 of the Electricity Act; and (3) Consumer Forums have no jurisdiction over the matters relating to the assessment of charges for the unauthorized use of electricity, tampering of meters, as also over the matters which fall under the domain of special courts constituted under the Electricity Act . In view of the majority decision of the Hon’ble National Commission, we therefore hold that our present complainant who is a consumer of electricity under the O.P is a “Consumer” under the C.P Act and that the complaint filed by him is maintainable in this Forum. The first issue is therefore decided in favour of the complainant. Further , we have found that the complainant is a consumer of electricity under the O.P WBSEDCL. His complaint against the O.P is regarding the bill of Rs. 27111/- raised by the O.P for the month May 2007 to July 2007. The complainant has stated that his consumption for the last 4 years since August, 2003 ranged between 48 units to 1107 units per quarter till April 2007 . But during the quarter May, 2007 to July, 2007 his consumption was shown as 4802 units which according to him is totally absurd. This is precisely his complaint against the O.P . The O.P WBSEDCL has asserted that the above bill for the period May, 2007 to July 2007 was raised by them as per recording of the meter. They stated that the meter had also been inspected by their technical staff and it was found in sound condition. They have also stated that the present meter had been installed by them on 1.10.2003 replacing the old meter. They further stated that in January, 2007 they had made a wrong entry in the blue card noting 4605 units in place of actual reading of 7605 units. The O.P however did not submit the blue card or any other document to show that reading of the meter in January, 2007 showed 7605 units, while the billed units at that point of time was 4605 units. Further the O.P did never state this fact to the consumer while they were exchanging letters on this issue of excessive billing for the quarter May 2007 to July, 2007. We have also found that on the next reading date i.e April 2007 (after January 2007) the reading was only 4830 units. If the posting of meter reading was wrongly done in January 2007, it is expected that the next reading in April 2007 should have shown the correct figure in the meter and the reading in that case should have been more than 7605 units. Actually it was 4830 units only. We cannot accept that meter reading was again posted wrongly in the blue book in April 2007 . On the other hand, the O.P did not make allegation against the complainant for any unauthorized use of electricity or tampering of meter etc. which might have led to the huge consumption of 4802 units during the quarter May 2007 to July 2007. From the chart of consumption of electricity furnished by the complainant for the 4 years prior to May, 2007, we safely presume that the consumption shown for the quarter May 2007 to July 2007 was much on the higher side than its usual reading and it appears to us abnormal reading . The O.P stated that they had inspected the meter twice in September 2007 and found it running in good condition. Even then we cannot rule out the possibility that the meter was not showing correct reading, considering the fact that it was working for nearly 4 years since 2003. The O.P should have conducted a laboratory test to be sure whether the meter was functioning properly or not. The complainant had made a written complaint to the O.P on 16.8.2007 alleging that the meter had developed a technical defect which caused recording of such abnormal units for the period May 2007 to July 2007. The O.P should have arranged for a laboratory test of the meter on receiving that complaint. The O.P failed to take such effective steps to ascertain the correct condition of the meter. We refuse to the contention of the O.P that the bill for the period May 2007 to July 2007 had been raised correctly by the O.P unless a laboratory test report of the meter by the C.E.I is produced before us. So there was deficiency of the O.P in discharge their service properly to the complainant by not arranging for a laboratory test of the meter of the complainant in July 2007. The 2nd issue is also decided against the O.P WBSEDCL. We may now look at the prayer of the complaint for relief to be granted to him. The complainant prayed before this Forum for declaring the bill for the period May 2007 to July 2007 of Rs. 27111/- as null and void and replace the meter. At this stage the best relief for the complainant will be to get the meter properly tested in a laboratory by O.P and find the actual condition of the meter and obtain a report as to whether the meter was recording correct readings in respect of consumption since May 2007 (the meter reading was taken on 13.7.2007) and till the report is received , O.P will realize the bills as per direction given below. Hence Ordered That the complaint is allowed but without costs. The O.P is directed to arrange for a proper laboratory test of the meter concerned. Till such date when the laboratory test of the meter is completed the O.P will only collect the bills at the average rate of consumption by the complainant for 6 months prior to May 2007 . Revised bills since May 2007 will be raised by the O.P thereafter on the basis of findings of the laboratory test of the meter. If the meter is found functioning properly, the O.P shall have to pay the bills charges by O.P without raising any objection. We make no order as to the compensation and costs. Let a copy of this order be served upon the parties free of costs. Member Member President Dictated and corrected by me Member