Wbsedcl

**Tanu** · 09-01-2009, 10:51 PM

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

West Bengal

BHABANI BHAVAN (GROUND FLOOR)

31, BELVEDERE ROAD, ALIPORE

KOLKATA – 700 027

S.C. CASE NO. : 408/A/2007

DATE OF FILING : 24.01.2008 DATE OF FINAL ORDER: 22.04.2009

APPELLANT

WBSEDCL, through the Station Manager,

Tomluk Group Electric Supply,

Tomluk.

RESPONDENTS

a) Sri Tapas Adhikary

b) Sri Dilip Adhikary

c) Sri Sidhartha Adhikary

All are sons of Late Panchanan Adhikary

Of Town-Padumbasan, P.O. & P.S. Tamluk

Dist. Purba Medinipur.

d) Sri Sri Dibyendu Adhikary

S/o. Late Panchanan Adhikary,

P.O. & P.S. Sutahata,

Dist. Purba Medinipur.

e) Sri Manas Mohan Adhikhary

S/o. Late Panchanan Adhikary

P.O. Kalyani, Dist. Nadia.

f) Smt. Seba Bhattacharya

W/o Sri Probadh Bhattacharya

D/o. Late Panchanan Adhikary

Vill. & P.O. Baharampur, Dist. Murshidabad.

g) Smt. Reba Ganguli

W/o Ashok Ganguli

D/o. Late Panchanan Adhikary

1, Gouribari Lane, Kolkata.

BEFORE : MEMBER : MR. P.K.CHATTOPADHYAY

MEMBER : MR. S.COARI

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

FOR THE RESPONDENT / O.P.S.: Mr. M.Maiti, Ld. Advocate(Res.a,b&c)

: O R D E R :

MR. P.K.CHATTOPADHYAY, LD. MEMBER

This Appeal arose out of judgement and order dt. 31.5.07 passed by the DCDRF, Purba Medinipur, in Case No. 22/07 wherein the complainant, Smt. Ratnamala Adhikary’s complaint was related to providing her power connection and for suitable orders in regard to OP’s supposed illegal claim of Rs. 63,319/- towards claims against prior period consumption. The Ops namely, WBSEDCL, entered appearance and contended inter alia that the complainant having been a resident of the given premises where she was a direct beneficiary of the existing power connection provided in the said premises, the complainant had direct nexus with the consumer(s) there having the power line located in the same premises and in that view, the given claim of Rs. 63,319/- towards prior period consumption was in order and the amount having not been paid there could be no question of specific restoration/new power connection in the name of the complainant.

The Ld. Forum below after hearing respective sides passed its judgement and order as under :-

“That the case be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP without cost. The complainant is entitled to have restoration of her service line without any payment of arrear amount as mentioned in Ext. 1 & re-commendation charge. The OP is directed to restore electric connection of the complainant as mentioned above without any re-connection charge and without any arrear payment by one month from this date i.d. the complainant is at liberty to execute the same through this Forum after expiry of the period mentioned above.”

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgement so passed in the Forum below the OP there namely WBSEDCL, filed this Appeal when it was contended inter alia that the judgement was erroneous and was passed in gross violation of provisions like Indian Electricity Act, 2003 and Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and rules thereunder. It was further contended that prior period consumption bill of Rs. 63,319/- arose out a mistake of the meter reader of the Appellant when the actual consumption for Rs. 1,09,561/- was imposed in regular bills and this amount was later rectified/changed to Rs. 63,319/-. Arguing that the Ld. Forum failed to appreciate the provisions envisaged in Section 56(2) of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 wherein it was categorically provided that the Distribution Company/Appellant could recover previous period consumption bills under certain specific conditions and the same having been duly performed, the finding of the Forum below that the claim is time-barred and/or not recoverable does not hold good. Stating that the Ld. Forum below erred in holding that there was deficiency on the part of the Appellant/OP, the impugned judgement was sought to be set aside with further appropriate orders as deemed fit.

The Respondents namely (a) Sri Tapas Adhikary, (b) Sri Dilip Adhikary and (c) Sri Siddhartha Adhikary, duly substituted as heirs to Smt. Ratnamala Adhikary, since deceased, entered appearance and stated inter alia that they were regular consumers of WBSEDCL, formerly WBSEB, having Consumer no. TMK 1507 and were never defaulters in making payment of electric bills since inception. Sudden claim of the OP/Appellant amounting to Rs. 63,319/- on 9.3.07 supposedly against prior period consumption from March, 2003 to February, 2005 was duly objected to seeking rectification. However, the Appellant chose not to pay any heed and the Respondents were threatened disconnection of power line for non-payment of the sum so claimed. Only thereafter the complainant/Respondents filed the consumer case seeking direction towards restoration on the disconnection of the power line and cancellation of the electric bill so claimed with other remedies like compensation and damages. Evidence was filed by the Respondents, but in any case electric connection was disconnected on 14.4.07. The Respondents further argued that prior period claim was fictitious as there was patent disorder in reading dates of the bills and OP/Appellant made contradictory statements in written objection vis-à-vis Memo of Appeal. Stating that no evidence was adduced by the OP/Appellant on printing mistake of the bills or in the supposed mistake committed by the meter reader on record and further by carrying out a portion of the judgement dt. 31.5.07 of the Ld. Forum below by restoring electric connection, which was earlier disconnected on 14.4.07, the OP/Appellant waived its right to prefer the instant Appeal. Referring to reading mistake of the meter for the period from March, 2003 to February, 2005 giving rise to the subsequent claim towards prior period consumption of Rs. 63,319/- as was raised on 9.3.07 and then shown continuously as recoverable arrears, it was contended that firstly the claim was based on false information and secondly, this position was never revealed by the OP/Appellant to the Complainant/Respondent(s) at any point of time prior to filing of the affidavit before this Commission. Accordingly, the Respondents prayed for affirmation of the judgement and order of the Ld. Forum below and for passing of further orders as deemed fit and proper.

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

DISCUSSION

A. Admittedly, Late Ratnamala Adhikary had power connection in her name and power consumption bills as were raised by the OP/Appellant were duly paid on her behalf. However, the consumer namely Late Ratnamala Adhikary, had two domestic meters arising out of same consumer number namely C-042331 and Service Connection No. TMK 1507 when the meter numbers were 1004329 and 1043410. The Appellant’s version is that due to a mistake by the meter reader during the period from March, 2003 to February, 2005 the readings were taken and computed on the basis of 4 digits instead of actual 5 digit-reading on the meter. This gave rise to the prior period consumption claim of Rs. 63,319/- which claim was raised on 9.3.07 and on account of non-payment of the said sum, the supply line was disconnected. Subsequent to demise of Ratnamala Adhikary her three sons namely, Sri Tapas Adhikary, Sri Dilip Adhikary and Sri Siddhartha Adhikary were substituted as heirs in the Appeal case. Originally the prior period consumption was calculated for an amount of Rs. 1,09,561/- which was later brought down to Rs. 63,319/- after having representation from the Respondents. As a matter of fact, the said amount of Rs. 1,09,561/- was shown as outstanding dues on the bills for the months of June, July, August, 2005 and March, May, 2007. Referring to the judgement of the Ld. Forum below where the Ld. Forum held the bill for Rs. 63,319/- as fictitious and also referring to Forum’s observation on applicability of Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003, copies of the bills imageprint for the relevant period was relied upon and it was stated that Section 106 and 114(g) of Law of Evidence would be applicable in this case. Stating further that the records specifically show that the claim of Rs. 63,319/- was periodically reflected in successive bills as required U/S 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003, the Appellant sought for realization of the given amount namely Rs. 63,319/- from the Respondents.

B. It is beyond any reason, understanding or logic as to how a table having provisions for 5-digit entries can have successive 4-digit entries for a large and protracted period, which, by official proceeding is required to be counter-signed and re-checked by supervisors and it is also not comprehensible as to how successive bills could be raised on accumulation of meter readings of 4 digits, which by simple method of arithmetic is an absurdity after a period, leaving aside questions of supervision or otherwise. It is also not transparent as to what action the Appellant/OP took in regard to such mistake or misdemeanour on part of its meter reader and also as to why or how the drop in consumption as would routinely occur on 4 digit reading was not taken into account by appropriate officials of the service provider namely, the Appellant. It is also not clear as to why a consumer like the Respondents here would be penalized by a sudden demand of Rs. 1,09,561/- for no fault of the consumer. In this regard we take note of judgement and order in S.C. Case No. 409/A/07 – WBSEDCL vs. Smt. Subhra Adhikary, where it was ordered that the Respondent, Smt. Subhra Adhikary, would be entitled to have power connection in her name without payment of any arrear amount and the Ld. Forum’s order dt. 28.9.07 was affirmed with modification that its order relating to compensation was set aside. In the present case, in regard to claim of Rs. 63,319/- towards prior period consumption we do not have any evidence from the meter reader of the Appellant as to his supposed mistake or any evidence either from any supervisor of the said meter reader nor do we have any evidence of the conclusive meter reading or any calculation as to how exactly the prior period consumption claim was settled for Rs. 63,319/-. In this regard, we lack the technical competence to arrive at any précise figure towards settlement of prior period consumption claim or on the propriety thereof. Therefore, in terms of Electricity Act, 2003 as amended in 2007 read with WBERC Regulations and code thereunder we are of the opinion that the said claim be referred by the Appellant to the ombudsman as constituted under provisions of law.

C. We accordingly hold that the prior period consumption bill amounting to Rs. 63,319/- as was arbitrarily assessed and imposed on the Respondent(s) without resorting to fair, transparent and reasonable mode of determination be decided by the Ld. Ombudsman subsequent to reference by the Appellant to such authority and any amount that may be determined fair and reasonable by such authority should be realized from the legal heirs of Late Ratnamala Adhikary, through due process of law and/or under Public Demand Recovery Act as is provided. In that view, we are in agreement with the Ld. Forum’s orders on restoration of power supply to the Respondents, which was since done. The current consumption bills in respect of such line would be required to be raised by the Appellant and paid by the Respondent(s)/Complainant in terms of provisions of Electricity Act, 2003 as amended in 2007 and rules thereunder read with provisions of WBERC Regulations.

O R D E R

Hence, it is ORDERED that the Appeal is allowed in part on contest without cost. The part relating to the impugned judgement of the Ld. Forum below ordering restoration of power supply to the Respondent(s)/Complainant is affirmed. Payment in respect of current consumption of such power line would be made periodically as per applicable provisions of laws and rules thereunder. Relating to the claim of Rs. 63,319/- towards prior period consumption, arbitrarily imposed on the Respondents/Complainant, the same will be required to be referred to the Ld. Ombudsman by the Appellant under due intimation to the Respondents towards determination of the appropriate amount in such respect, which amount so determined will be required to be realized from the legal heirs of Late Ratnamala Adhikary, to be so realized in appropriate number of installments ensuring avoidance of any financial distress. This order will be required to be set in motion and completed within 60 (sixty) days from the date of this judgement and order and on default, an amount of cost of Rs. 25/- (Rupees twenty five only) per day will be payable by the Appellant to the Respondents/Complainant till the period of default.

MEMBER MEMBER

**adv.sumit** · 10-12-2009, 02:35 PM

PETITIONER =Vs. = O.P

Abdul Rashid Khan, Suri Gr E/Supply, WBSEDCL,

S/o Lt. Md. Isaque Khan Rep. by Station Manager, Suri Kalibari,

of Kendua Fakir Para, PO & PS-Suri, Birbhum.

PO & PS-Suri, Birbhum

:: J U D G E M E N T ::

That a consumer is a commercial consumer under WBSEDCL Suri Kalibari. His domestic line has been disconnected but the consumer enjoys electricity as a commercial consumer. The O.P. Company directed him by issuing a notice dated 04/07/08 to pay Rs.5607/- as unpaid energy bill for the period from 07.2004 to 03.2005. The petitioner requested the O.P. to grant him installments and agreed to pay the outstanding dues under protest. But after sometime O.P. demanded Rs.10685/- by issuing another bill on 15/09/2008. Petitioner mentions in his complaint that his domestic connection was disconnected in the year 2005 and he converted his service line from domestic to commercial connection. The petitioner also submits in his complaint that he runs a very small shop in his house and works for his livelihood. Then petitioner sends an advocate notice. The petitioner alleged deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. and came before this Forum with his prayer. He prays for cancellation of the notice dt.04.7.2008 demanding Rs.5607/- and also for cancellation of installment bill dt.15.9.08 of Rs. 10,685/-.

2. He also prays for detail account for unpaid energy bills and surcharge issued by the O.P.

3. Compensation for mental agony and harassment.

The statement of O.P.:- By filing written version the O.P. alleged that the present complaint is not maintainable. He also alleged that the petitioner is a habitual defaulter and it is fact that he did not pay bill charges for the billing period 07.2004 to 03.2005. For realization the energy charges O.P. send the notice and bill for outstanding dues. The petitioner is also liable to pay surcharges on bill as well a s delaying charges. O.P. demanded this amount as per rules and regulation of the WBERC. There is nothing wrong and unlawful. The O.P. prays for dismissal of the complaint.

Contd…2/

-::2::-

Both parties files evidence on affidavit in support of their petition and other relevant documents.

Findings of the Forum:-

1. The petitioner is a small businessman. He submits in his complaint that there is a small shop in his house. He converted domestic line into commercial connection on 2005. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is a small business man and is working for his livelihood and not for gains.

Hence I come to the conclusion that he is a consumer u/s 2(1)(d)(ii) of C.P. Act, 1986.

2. The O.P. alleged in his written version as well as in his evidence on affidavit that there is no illegality and deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. But I observe that O.P. did not serve any notice upon the petitioner before issuing unpaid energy bill as well as notice upon the petitioner. He did not show continuously the amount of outstanding dues in the bills, which is a must. The present Electricity Rule and Regulation clearly stated this. More over no one can get a new service line unless and until the E.C. Board become satisfied there is no such bill unpaid by the consumer regarding the existing meter. Here the consumer applied for conversion of his old domestic connection in new commercial connection. Hence I can not understand how the O.P. Company install new connection without realisation the outstanding dues for energy which was consumed by the petitioner.

The West Bengal Electricity Regularity Commission (Electricity Supply Code) Regulation 2004 u/s 3.4.2 clearly states that the licensee shall not be eligible to recover any sum due from any consumer after the period of two years from the date when such sum became first due unless such sum has been shown continuously as recoverable as arrear of charges for electricity supply and the licensee shall not cut of the supply of the electricity in such cases as laid down under section 56(2)of the electricity Act 2003. Again Electricity Act 2003 section 56 (2)clearly shows “no sum due from any consumer under this section shall be recoverable after the period of two years from the date when such sum became first due unless such sum shows continuously in the bills as recoverable as arrear of charges for electricity supply.” The ld. Advocate of the O.P. company referred a similar case filed in the Dist. Forum of Birbhum (CC no.36/, S.C. case no.178/A/2006 ).

The O.P. Company preferred an appeal before Ld. State Hon’ble State Commission. Hon’ble State Commission allowed the appeal and dismissed the order of below Forum. But after perusal of the judgment of Hon’ble State Commission I come to conclusion that these two cases are different all together. The Section 126 of Electricity Act, of 2003 is not applicable here. Because there is no inspection report or either of the parties submits that there was an inspection performed by the officer of O.P. Company. Hence I come to conclusion that O.P. did not disclose the basis of the notice dt.04.07.2008 for claiming outstanding dues from the petitioner. O.P. did not show any outstanding dues in any bill of the petitioner.

3. The O.P. also alleged that a consumer cannot come before a Consumer Forum and will go for redressal of grievances to the Special Court in this regard I referred the

Contd…3/

-::3::-

judgment giving by Hon’ble N.C. in the case Jharkhand State Electricity Board Vs. Anwar Ali (C.P.C. 2008)(ii)NC reported also in Consumer Protection cases page 491). In his judgment Hon’ble N.C. clearly stated that Electricity Act 2003 sec.50,126,157,173and 175) and C.P. Act,1986 both run parallel regarding limited purpose in respect of arbitrary and illegal action under the rules and regulations framed under E.C. Act. Complaint regarding Electricity supply and deficiency in service by E.C. Board or any Pvt. Company is maintainable under C.P. Act. A person can file a complain under C.P. Act. as well as Electricity Act. Here petitioner came before this Forum which is his right under law of the land.

Hence I come to the conclusion that the petitioner proved his case beyond doubt. This is a clear case of negligence and deficiency of service on this part of O.P. Hence, petitioner is entitled to get compensation. But here the O.P. company is Government organization. It is run by the Govt. Exchequer. Hence monetary compensation or fine ultimately becomes fine upon the common tax payer of the State. So, I do not allow any monetary compensation for mental agony and harassment.

Hence,

It is ordered

C.C. no.3/09 is allowed in part on contest but without cost, each party bears his own costs.

**adv.sumit** · 10-23-2009, 01:09 PM

PETITIONER =Vs. = O.P

Abdul Rashid Khan, Suri Gr E/Supply, WBSEDCL,

S/o Lt. Md. Isaque Khan Rep. by Station Manager, Suri Kalibari,

of Kendua Fakir Para, PO & PS-Suri, Birbhum.

PO & PS-Suri, Birbhum

:: J U D G E M E N T ::

That a consumer is a commercial consumer under WBSEDCL Suri Kalibari. His domestic line has been disconnected but the consumer enjoys electricity as a commercial consumer. The O.P. Company directed him by issuing a notice dated 04/07/08 to pay Rs.5607/- as unpaid energy bill for the period from 07.2004 to 03.2005. The petitioner requested the O.P. to grant him installments and agreed to pay the outstanding dues under protest. But after sometime O.P. demanded Rs.10685/- by issuing another bill on 15/09/2008.

Petitioner mentions in his complaint that his domestic connection was disconnected in the year 2005 and he converted his service line from domestic to commercial connection. The petitioner also submits in his complaint that he runs a very small shop in his house and works for his livelihood. Then petitioner sends an advocate notice. The petitioner alleged deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. and came before this Forum with his prayer. He prays for cancellation of the notice dt.04.7.2008 demanding Rs.5607/- and also for cancellation of installment bill dt.15.9.08 of Rs. 10,685/-.

2. He also prays for detail account for unpaid energy bills and surcharge issued by the O.P.

3. Compensation for mental agony and harassment.

The statement of O.P.:- By filing written version the O.P. alleged that the present complaint is not maintainable. He also alleged that the petitioner is a habitual defaulter and it is fact that he did not pay bill charges for the billing period 07.2004 to 03.2005. For realization the energy charges O.P. send the notice and bill for outstanding dues. The petitioner is also liable to pay surcharges on bill as well a s delaying charges. O.P. demanded this amount as per rules and regulation of the WBERC. There is nothing wrong and unlawful. The O.P. prays for dismissal of the complaint.

Contd…2/

-::2::-

Both parties files evidence on affidavit in support of their petition and other relevant documents.

Findings of the Forum:-

1. The petitioner is a small businessman. He submits in his complaint that there is a small shop in his house. He converted domestic line into commercial connection on 2005. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is a small business man and is working for his livelihood and not for gains.

Hence I come to the conclusion that he is a consumer u/s 2(1)(d)(ii) of C.P. Act, 1986.

2. The O.P. alleged in his written version as well as in his evidence on affidavit that there is no illegality and deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. But I observe that O.P. did not serve any notice upon the petitioner before issuing unpaid energy bill as well as notice upon the petitioner. He did not show continuously the amount of outstanding dues in the bills, which is a must. The present Electricity Rule and Regulation clearly stated this. More over no one can get a new service line unless and until the E.C. Board become satisfied there is no such bill unpaid by the consumer regarding the existing meter. Here the consumer applied for conversion of his old domestic connection in new commercial connection.

Hence I can not understand how the O.P. Company install new connection without realisation the outstanding dues for energy which was consumed by the petitioner. The West Bengal Electricity Regularity Commission (Electricity Supply Code) Regulation 2004 u/s 3.4.2 clearly states that the licensee shall not be eligible to recover any sum due from any consumer after the period of two years from the date when such sum became first due unless such sum has been shown continuously as recoverable as arrear of charges for electricity supply and the licensee shall not cut of the supply of the electricity in such cases as laid down under section 56(2)of the electricity Act 2003.

Again Electricity Act 2003 section 56 (2)clearly shows “no sum due from any consumer under this section shall be recoverable after the period of two years from the date when such sum became first due unless such sum shows continuously in the bills as recoverable as arrear of charges for electricity supply.” The ld. Advocate of the O.P. company referred a similar case filed in the Dist. Forum of Birbhum (CC no.36/, S.C. case no.178/A/2006 ). The O.P. Company preferred an appeal before Ld. State Hon’ble State Commission. Hon’ble State Commission allowed the appeal and dismissed the order of below Forum. But after perusal of the judgment of Hon’ble State Commission I come to conclusion that these two cases are different all together.

The Section 126 of Electricity Act, of 2003 is not applicable here. Because there is no inspection report or either of the parties submits that there was an inspection performed by the officer of O.P. Company. Hence I come to conclusion that O.P. did not disclose the basis of the notice dt.04.07.2008 for claiming outstanding dues from the petitioner. O.P. did not show any outstanding dues in any bill of the petitioner.

3. The O.P. also alleged that a consumer cannot come before a Consumer Forum and will go for redressal of grievances to the Special Court in this regard I referred the

Contd…3/

-::3::-

judgment giving by Hon’ble N.C. in the case Jharkhand State Electricity Board Vs. Anwar Ali (C.P.C. 2008)(ii)NC reported also in Consumer Protection cases page 491). In his judgment Hon’ble N.C. clearly stated that Electricity Act 2003 sec.50,126,157,173and 175) and C.P. Act,1986 both run parallel regarding limited purpose in respect of arbitrary and illegal action under the rules and regulations framed under E.C. Act. Complaint regarding Electricity supply and deficiency in service by E.C. Board or any Pvt. Company is maintainable under C.P. Act. A person can file a complain under C.P. Act. as well as Electricity Act. Here petitioner came before this Forum which is his right under law of the land.

Hence I come to the conclusion that the petitioner proved his case beyond doubt. This is a clear case of negligence and deficiency of service on this part of O.P. Hence, petitioner is entitled to get compensation. But here the O.P. company is Government organization. It is run by the Govt. Exchequer. Hence monetary compensation or fine ultimately becomes fine upon the common tax payer of the State. So, I do not allow any monetary compensation for mental agony and harassment.

Tapas Sinha · 04-06-2011, 12:08 AM

Respected Sir
With due respect I beg to inform you that I am Tapas Sinha residing at Phase 4b, flat no 17 Green row, Mahamayatala Garia 700153, 3rd floor as a bachelor accommodation from june 10. Sir, every month my electricity bill was in between 650-700 per qtr. But last qtr Jan 11-Mar 11 it is increased to Rs 5000. I am a bachelor working in a pvt. Co duty hrs, 8am to 8pm approx. How it is possible ? I also inform you that it very much impossible to pay this amount as a electricity rent. It will create a big big trouble for my day to day problem.
Requesting you once again please do something positively to overcome this problem at the earliest.
Thanking You
Tapas Sinha
Con ID-115069347
Con no-B087408
Contact no-9007109434

Wbsedcl

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Rate This Thread

Display

Wbsedcl

Wbsedcl

Wbsedcl

Wrong Electricity Bill amount charged

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions