W.B.S.E.B. vs NIHAR KUMAR DUTTA

THIS appeal has arisen out of the judgment passed by the District Forum, Jalpaiguri, on 18.9.2003. Th facts of the case in a nutshell are stated hereunder.

THE complainant being a domestic consumer under the O.P.-W.B.S.E.B. received the electric bill for the month of February, 2003 to April, 2003 showing outstanding amount of Rs. 7,864/- for the corresponding period of consumption from August, 2001 to January, 2003, but the previous bills never showed any error on account of any unpaid bills. According to the complainant no amount is outstanding upto January, 2003. When the meter was replaced on 18.8.2002, no units were shown as outstanding in the yellow card attached to the new meter. THE O.P. sent a highly inflated bill for the month of February, 3 to April, 3 showing outstanding dues from August, 1 to January, 2003. THE aforesaid bill was prepared arbitrarily, illegally and with mala fide intention without physical reading. THE O.P. tried to disconnect the electric connection of the complainant on the basis of the notice dated 12.4.2003 for non-payment of the impugned bill, but could not due to interfere of Jalpaiguri Kreta Suraksha Samity. THEreafter the complainant filed the case before the Forum praying a direction upon the O.P. to issue fresh bill for the month from February, 2003 to April, 2003 without charging any arrear dues. THE complainant also prayed for compensation and cost from the O.P. In its judgment the Forum directed the O.P. to raise bills for the month of February, 2003 to April, 2003 on the basis of actual physical meter reading and further the O.P. could not claim Rs. 7,864/-, reflected on the impugned bill. The Forum has further directed the O.P. to pay compensation of Rs. 350/- and cost of Rs. 300/- to the complainant within two months from the date of the order.

Being dissatisfied with the above order W.B.S.E.B.-appellant has preferred the present appeal before the Commission. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the bill from February, 2003 to April, 2003 was prepared on the basis of physical meter reading of the old meter since the consumer had consumed 750 units and is bound to pay the bill. The old meter was replaced by the present new meter and the above mentioned units were lying unpaid by the respondent. It is further submitted by the appellant that billing dispute cannot be decided by the Forum and Forum cannot declare the bill illegal. Moreover, the Forum does not enjoy the power to cancel a bill and it has passed the order without taking into consideration such aspect. As the line of the respondent was not disconnected by the appellant, the question of giving compensation and cost do not arise. According to the appellant the impugned judgment passed by the Forum below is erroneous and liable to be set aside.

ON careful perusal of all the papers and documents and considering the factual aspects, we notice that the dispute between the two parties is pertaining to one disputed bill (February, 2003 to April, 2003) as well as the earlier defective meter. We have carefully gone through the Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, which states that, "Where any difference or dispute arises as to whether any meter or bill is not correct, the matter shall be decided, upon the application of either party, by an Electrical Inspector, and where the meter has, in the opinion of such Inspector ceased to be correct, such Inspector shall estimate the amount of energy supplied to the consumer..." In this context, we may refer to a judgment reported in C.H.N. Vol. 1 1997, page 50 (SC) in the matter of C.E.S.C. v. N.M. Banka, which held that, "The consumer should have approached the Electrical Inspector straightaway if he was aggrieved by the bills. The Court should have declined to intervene when the consumer approached the Court. The Court should have directed the consumer to avail of the statutory remedy."

GOING by the foregoing discussion we deem it appropriate to pass the following order: The dispute between the two parties is pertaining to one disputed bill and defective nature of the earlier meter. To meet the ends of justice the respondent shall pay 50% of the disputed amount to the appellant. The appellant shall accordingly raise and provisional bill within 15 (fifteen) days of getting a copy of this order. The respondent shall also pay the reconnection charge to the appellant as per the Electricity Act if the line is disconnected. The appellant shall replace the defective meter by a defect-free and new meter in the circuit. The charge of the CEI will be borne by the respondent. Thereafter, the entire disputed bill and the earlier defective meter in question are to be referred to the CEI, West Bengal for adjudication. The 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 regarding the disputed bills as well as the defective meter will be binding on both the parties. Regarding the compensation of Rs. 350/- and cost of Rs. 300/-, awarded by the Forum below we are of the opinion that the electric line was not disconnected by the appellant. The appellant only issued the notice for disconnection. In our opinion mere issuance of notice for disconnection of the electric line due to non-payment of bills is not deficiency in service on the part of the W.B.S.E.B.-appellant. As there was no deficiency, award of compensation and cost were not justified. We are inclined a set aside the compensation of Rs. 350/- and cost of Rs. 300/-. Hence it is ordered that the appellant-W.B.S.E.B. shall not pay the compensation and cost, awarded by the Forum below to the respondent.

THEREFORE, the appeal is allowed in part on contest and the impugned judgment passed by the Forum below is set aside. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. Appeal Partly allowed.