S.C. CASE NO. : FA/08/412



DATE OF FILING : 27.10.2009 DATE OF FINAL ORDER: 10.08.2009


APPELLANT



Mr. Malayneel Roy

S/o. Sri Ajit Kr. Roy

Vill. & P.O. Kirnahar

P.S. Nanoor, Birbhum.



RESPONDENTS



1. Station Manager

WBSEB,

Kirnahar Group Electricity Supply

Kirnahar, Birbhum.

2. Assistant Engineer

WBSEB

Kirnahar Group Electric supply

Birbhum.

3. Superintendent Engineer

Suri, Dist. Birbhum.



BEFORE : MEMBER : MR. P.K.CHATTOPADHYAY

MEMBER : MR. S.COARI



FOR THE PETITIONER / APPELLANT : Mr. P.Banerjee, Ld. Advocate

FOR THE RESPONDENT / O.P.S.: Mr. P.R.Bakshi, Ld. Advocate





: O R D E R :


MR. P.K.CHATTOPADHYAY, LD. MEMBER

This Appeal arose out of judgement dt. 28.8.08 passed by DCDRF, Birbhum in C.F. Case No. BIR/65/O/2005 where the complainant, Mr. Malayneel Roy’s complaint related to alleged inflated, fabricated, false and concocted consumption bill dt. 7.7.05 for Rs. 72,773/- issued by the Respondent/OP, WBSEDCL, when the Appellant/Complainant used to pay his consumption bills quite regularly and without default. The complainant prayed for a direction upon the WBSEDCL to cancel the given bill dt. 7.7.05 and the installment bill dt. 14.7.05 for the said amount of Rs. 72,773/- and sought a fresh consumption bill for the given disputed period on the basis of actual consumption. The complainant further prayed for orders for not disconnecting the given service connection under number 13278 till disposal of the matter.

The OP/WBSEDCL entered appearance and filed written objection wherein it stated inter alia that the case was not maintainable, where the complaint was based on false allegation. Stating that the complainant was a Consumer of commercial connection it was stated that he used to run a multi-gym under the name and style “School of Physical Culture” and even though the meter readings were regularly taken initially, later readings could not be taken because the door was locked. However, at given opportunity namely on 1.10.04, 28.12.04 and 18.6.05 readings could be taken and appropriate billing was done. The OP further pointed out that there was no allegation of malfunctioning of the electric meter and once the complainant received the consumption claim of Rs. 72,773/- he approached the Respondents/Ops praying for installments which were since allowed after being provided slab/tariff benefits as were due. However, in spite of having received the given installment bills post concession above-said, the complaint was lodged.

The matter was heard from respective sides when the Ld. District Forum passed its judgement and order as under :-

“That the case is dismissed on contest against the Opp. Parties. The parties will bear their own cost. Copies of the judgement be supplied to the parties free of cost.”

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order the complainant in the Forum namely, Mr. Malayneel Roy, filed this Appeal stating inter alia that the District Forum passed the order mechanically and without applying judicial mind and the Forum erred in assessing the average consumption of the Appellant without proper basis and having no supporting evidence. The Appellant further pointed out that the Respondent did not file any evidence in regard to the stand that the Appellant was running a multi-gym and accordingly prayed for setting aside of the impugned judgement and order.

The Respondent/WBSEDCL entered appearance and filed BNA where it sought to point out that the given service connection of commercial nature was effected from 8.12.02 when the meter reading as on 5.10.05 was 13831, on which there is no dispute from either of the parties. Since the given meter started with a reading of 2 units only, the same was taken into account and total payable units were computed by subtracting 2 from 13831 giving a result of 13829 and, therefore, the number of units were divided by the outstanding period of 35 months resulting in consumption of 395 units per month, claimed and to be paid for by the complainant/Appellant. Subsequent to Appellant’s request thereafter the given amount was allowed to be paid in installments after allowing the slab/tariff benefit and thus the claim on the given consumption bill was perfectly in order and the Appellant/Complainant had no case. Accordingly, the Respondent sought to support the impugned judgement and order and prayed for dismissal of the Appeal.

The matter was heard from respective sides with submission of WNA.

DECISION :

A. The Appellant’s primary contention was that the Respondent having issued average bills following a period of 35 months without proper rhyme and reason and then issuing an arbitrary and inflated consumption claim of Rs. 72,773/-, the same was not permissible under the law where the settled law is that the Licensee cannot raise consumption bill for a prior period beyond six months without having mention of the arrear amount in successive average bills. The other point the Appellant sought to agitate was that there was no tangible evidence as to why the Respondent failed to issue proper consumption bills for all the period of 35 months and had to resort to average billing. The Respondent chose to remain silent on the first point and on the second point they stated that the given premises of the Appellant remained closed for most of the period when they could not take proper meter reading and hence, average bills had to be raised. In terms of Electricity Act 2003 as amended in 2007 and WBERC regulations thereunder the Respondents are not permitted to have prior period consumption claims beyond preceding six months unless the given outstanding amounts as in arrears are reflected in periodical consumption bills. There being no evidence whatsoever by the Respondents that there was such reflection on the average consumption bills, the Respondents’ claim for a prior period of 35 months, on the face of available evidence, is clearly untenable. There is no evidence either that actually the Appellant’s house/meter location was inaccessible to the Respondents/Ops for all the disputed period, the same being supposedly closed for which proper meter readings could not be taken. But there is no whisper as to which prevented the Respondent/OP in communicating the position to the Appellant/Complainant giving notice for disconnection on clear violation of contract with the Respondent/OP.

B. In that view, a claim of Rs. 72,773/- by the Respondents on the Appellant for the prior period consumption is required to be re-addressed by the Respondents through its grievance redressal machinery as constituted under provisions of Electricity Act 2003 so amended in 2007. Accordingly, the Respondents are liable to be directed for referring the said disputed prior period consumption bill to the grievance redressal machinery as constituted under law after communicating to the Appellant for payment of an amount of six months’ dues to be computed on the basis of consumption of last six months’ non-disputed period and subsequent to receipt of such payment therefor.

C. The Appeal is, therefore, liable to be allowed in part on contest without cost.



O R D E R :

The Appeal is allowed in part on contest without cost. The Respondents are directed to refer the disputed prior period consumption bill to the grievance redressal machinery as constituted under law after communicating to the Appellant for payment of an amount of six months’ dues to be computed on the basis of consumption of last six months’ non-disputed period and subsequent to receipt of such payment by the Appellant, which process should be completed by a period of ninety (90) days from the date of the judgement and order.



MEMBER MEMBER