WBSEB. vs HEMENDRA CHANDRA SARKAR

THIS is an appeal arising against the judgment of the District Forum, North 24 Parganas. The brief case of the complainant is that he is a consumer of electrical energy, which was consumed in a factory producing life saving medicines and 25 workers were employed there. He received three inflated electric bills, each for 1140 units of consumption. Then the meter was inspected by the O.P. on 20.4.2001 and found to be out of order after recording 12 units of consumption, but it did not take any step to change it. He made several representations for consideration of the bills in the light of the fact that the meter was out of order since 20.4.2001, and hence the amounts as well as units of consumption were wrong. Then he served a legal notice on 31.7.2001 upon the O.P. Subsequently he received another two bills showing consumption of 1140 units. He made several requests through letters for inquiry into the correctness of the bills and preparation of fresh bills. He was informed by the O.P. on 28.8.2001, that the matter was referred to the higher authority for decision. On 16.1.2002 the complainant received a notice from the O.P. with a threat of disconnection if the bills were not paid within due date. On 6.5.2002 the O.P. installed an electronic meter in the factory in replacement of the earlier meter. Then a bill dated 18.6.2002 for the period from 6.5.2002 to 27.5.2002 was correctly raised for 171 units of consumption. But as he did not pay the earlier bills the O.P. disconnected the service connection on 5.7.2002. He filed the case before the District Forum for direction upon the O.P. to restore electric connection and rectify the disputed bills.

IN its judgment dated 2.1.2003 Forum directed the O.P. to send the earlier defective meter to the CEI for adjudication and report. Before getting the report the O.P. may raise and furnish to the complainant a provisional bill for the consumption period from April, 2001 to May, 2002 at the rate of 155 units for 25 days as per the bill dated 8.7.2002 and the complainant shall pay it within due date as mentioned by the O.P. The O.P. shall be at liberty to raise fresh and final bill for the aforesaid consumption period of the disputed bills after receipt of the report from the CEI. The O.P. was also directed to restore the service connection within 15 days from this order. Moreover the complainant is entitled to get a cost of Rs. 500/- and Rs. 2,00,000/- by way of compensation within three months from the date of the order. IN default, the complainant shall be at liberty to recover the same in accordance with the provisions of law. Being dissatisfied with the order the appellant-WBSEB has preferred the appeal before the Commission. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that as the instant dispute is a billing dispute, the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the said dispute. The disputed bills ought to have been referred to the CEI, West Bengal, who is the only authority under the Electricity Act, to adjudicate the defectiveness of the meter as well as bills. The appellant further submits that the Forum is not empowered by the Consumer Protection Act to quash the disputed bills. Moreover the appellant is always entitled to raise average bills where at least defect in the meter is found. Thus by raising average bills the appellant has not committed any wrong. It is submitted by the appellant due to non-payment of electric bills the WBSEB disconnected the service line with prior notice according to the Electricity Act. So, there is no deficiency in service on their part and as there is no specification of losses suffered by the respondent, WBSEB is not liable to pay the compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs as awarded by the Forum to the respondent. Learned Counsel states that the judgment of the Forum below is erroneous, illegal and liable to be dismissed.

The respondent submits by filing written statement that the Forum has correctly pronounced the judgment and the appeal is a misconceived one and the same is liable to be dismissed. It is submitted by the respondent that the Forum has correctly referred that matter to the C.E.I., West Bengal for proper adjudication, but the appelant did not comply with this order till today. On careful perusal of the papers we notice that it is a case of defective meter and disputed bill. It is an admitted fact that the respondent is a consumer of WBSEB. He received 5 electric bills dated 5.5.2001, 6.6.2002, 6.7.2001, 5.9.2001 and 27.9.2001, each for 1140 units. According to him those bills were inflated. So he submitted several representations to the appellant for reconsideration of those disputed bills in the light of the fact that the meter was out of order since 20.4.2001, on which date the meter was inspected by the appellant and found to be out of order after recording 12 units of consumption. But the appellant did not pay any heed to his earnest request. On 6.5.2002 an electronic meter was installed. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that as the earlier meter was defective those 5 bills were raised on average basis at the rate of 1140 units . It is further stated by the appellant that the Board has the right to raise average bill in case of a defective meter according to the Act. So we notice that WBSEB has admitted that the said meter was defective. It is found that from the date of installation of the new electronic meter i.e., from 6.5.2002 to 27.5.2002 consumption of 171 units was recorded. On 5.7.2002 the appellant disconnected his service line due to non-payment of previous outstanding bills. The next bill dated 8.7.2002 for the period from 27.5.2002 to 20.6.2002 was paid by him on 16.7.2002.

LEARNED Counsel for the appellant has stated that according to the Section 24 of Indian Electricity Act WBSEB has legal right to disconnect the service connection of a consumer neglecting to pay charges with 7 days'' prior notice. But in the present case the appellant admitted that the earlier meter was defective. It was inspected by its people on 20.4.2001 and found to be out of order. In respect of disputed bills, Section 24(2) of Indian Electricity Act provides that where any difference or dispute arises, the matter is required to be determined by an Electrical Inspector, the Licensee shall not exercise the power of disconnection until the Inspector has given his decision. It is also noticed that the appellant informed the respondent on 28.8.2001 that his dispute was referred to the higher authority for decision. But till today he has not got any information from the higher authority and without waiting for their decision the line was disconnected. The disconnection was not proper when it was clear that all the disputed bills were raised without any rational basis. the appellant admitted in its memo of appeal that the bills were raised on average basis as the meter was defective, but could not clarify how this average was computed. So we are of the clear view that the appellant was not correct by disconnecting the service connection of the respondent due to non-payment of disputed bills against defective meter in question and such an action is contrary to it s own Act. The respondent made several representations to rectify the disputed bill, but the appellant did not take any notice thereof. After a long period WBSEB installed a new electronic meter replacing the defective one and afterwards the complainant paid the bills as per the new electronic meter regularly raised by the WBSEB. It is obviously a case of deficiency in service on the part of the appellant as it violated the Indian Electricity Act by disconnecting the service line of the respondent without referring the disputed bills and defective meter to the C.E.I. For such deficiency in service the appellant is liable to pay compensation to the present respondent.

WE also observe that the Forum below has correctly directed for referring the matter to the CEI, W.B. for adjudication, but till today the appellant did not comply with this order, though the learned Counsel for the appellant submits in the memo of appeal that the CEI is the only authority to adjudicate the matter regarding defective meter and disputed bill. The respondent sates that as a result of disconnection all production in the factory has stopped and the workers cannot be paid. So for this reason he suffered financial losses. In this context we are of the clear view that he did not adduce any evidence to prove his claimed quantum of financial loss. After carefully considering the materials on record, we are of the view that ends of justice will be met if the respondent is directed to pay 50% of the disputed amount before the matter is examined by the CEI whereupon the WBSEB shall be bound to give connection to the line in question subject to payment of reconnection charges as per Electricity Act and also payment of other undisputed bills, if any. Going by the foregoing discussion we deem it appropriate to pass the following order.

THE dispute between the two parties is pertaining to the defective meter in question and restoration of the electric connection which was disconnected for non-payment of bills. Regarding restoration of supply, we have already given our views. THE defective meter and disputed bills (from April, 2001 to May, 2002) are to be referred to the CEI, West Bengal for adjudication. THE cost of testing the meter will be borne by WBSEB. CEI would do well to dispose of the matter expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of reference. Be it mentioned that the decision of the CEI will be binding on both the parties regarding the bill amount for the disputed period and defective nature of the meter.

IN its judgment the Forum directed the appellant (herein) to pay a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation to the present respondent. But we think that the amount is on the higher side. So, we are of the opinion it will be proper if we reduce it to Rs. 20,000/- (twenty thousand) only. Hence, it is ordered that the appellantWBSEBshallpayasumofRs. 20,000/- (twenty thousand) by way of compensation to the respondent within three months from the date of this order. This amount will be adjusted against the bills to be raised by the appellant for consumption of electricity by the respondent. The order of the Forum regarding payment of cost of Rs. 500/- is set aside. Thus the appeal is allowed in part on contest and the judgment of the Forum is modified as detailed above. Appeal allowed.