IMPORTANT POINT
Electricity authorities cannot afford to be keener to realize revenues rather than maintaining proper service in consideration to all aspects of consumer.

Mrs. Silpi Majumder, Member—This appeal has arisen out of the judgment passed by the learned District Forum, Kolkata, Unit-I, on 29.7.2010, in its case No. 326/2007, wherein the learned Forum below allowing the complaint on contest with cost of Rs.500 has directed the OPs to pay severally and jointly a compensation of Rs.5,000 only to the Complainant No.2 for her mental agony and harassment caused due to non-supply of electricity within 45 days from the date of communication of the judgment, failing which the total amount of Rs.5,500 would carry an interest @ 10% p.a. till recovery.

2. Being aggrieved by the abovementioned judgment the OP-Appellants have preferred the present appeal before this Commission contending that the learned Forum below has failed to appreciate that a billing dispute cannot be decided under COPRA since the Electricity Act and the Regulations has specifically provided Forums to decide the billing dispute matter. It has been mentioned by the Appellants at the impugned judgment is wholly baseless and without jurisdiction since due to six days delay a compensation of Rs.5,000 and cost of Rs.500 has been awarded by the learned Forum below where the monthly consumption bill is always around for a sum of Rs.1,000. The Appellants have submitted that due to continuous default in making payment of the electricity bills connection was disconnected on 15.6.2007 for the months of March, April, May, 2007 upon serving notice for disconnection and payment was made on 20.6.2007, but no information was given. For this reason there was delay of six days for restoring the electric connection, which cannot be termed as deficiency in service. According to the complainants the judgment passed by the learned Forum below being erroneous, illegal is liable to be set aside and the Appellants have also prayed for allowing the present appeal.

3. The brief fact of the case of the complainants is that the Complainants are two sisters residing at the same building and at the same premises along with their other relatives and Complainant No.1 and her relative are Advocates. The electric connection under CESC in their ancestral house is in the name of complainant No. 2 having consumer and meter numbers. The allegation of the Complainants is that they received excess billing for the month of January, 2007 amounting to Rs.4,500 charging areas from 2002-2003 and 2004. Further negations are that the subsequent bills for two months showed excess billing. The CESC Authorities continued charging additional security deposit at interval of 2-3 months. On 25.1.2007 the Complainant paid a sum of Rs. 7,500 for the consumption for the month of December, 2006. The OPs issued disconnection notice and a subsequent bill for several months up to May was not paid by them. In apprehension of disconnection the Complainant-Consumer made part payment of the bill for the month of April 2007 with the consent of the OPs. But on 15.6.2007 the OPs disconnected their line for non-payment of the bill for the months March to May 2007, payment was due on 11.6.2007. The Complainant has alleged that she did not receive the bill for May within due date. Subsequently, bill for May 2007 together with reconnection charge was paid but connection was not resumed by the OPs. Alleging excesses billing the Complainant No.2 resorted to legal recourse by filing title suit before the Hon’ble 5th Civil Judge, Alipore and subsequently, after disconnection to the Hon’ble High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Complainants have submitted before the learned Forum below that they had to face considerable damage due to the said disconnection. In the petition of complaint the Complainants have prayed for direction upon the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000 towards damage, payment of cost and other reliefs as per law.

4. On careful consideration of the records and documents and hearing the arguments as advanced by the Counsel for the parties it is seen by us that th