Back
TRIPURA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Mr. U.B. Saha, President, Mrs. Sobhana Datta, Member and Mr. Narayan Chandra Sharma, Member
TRIPURA STATE ELECTRICITY CORPON. LTD. - Appellant
Versus
NRIPENDRA DATTA, S/O LATE RAMESH DATTA, DHULLAI - Respondent
Case No. A. 31 of 2016
Decided on : 01-04-2017
Ms. Sujata Deb (Gupta), Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Swarup Pandit, Advocate, for the Respondent
The main legal point established is that disputes regarding defective meters in electricity billing should be referred to the Electrical Inspector for adjudication, and the parties should be bound by the Inspector's decision.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Electricity Billing Dispute - Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - The judgment discusses the dispute between the complainant and the electricity corporation regarding excessive billing and defective meter. The court directed the parties to refer the dispute to the Electrical Inspector for adjudication and to be bound by the Inspector's decision. The appellant was directed to refund the excess amount if found by the Inspector.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant applied for an electricity connection in 2003 and alleged that the meter provided became defective in 2011. After a new meter was installed, the complainant claimed it was also defective, leading to excessive billing. The electricity corporation denied the claim and argued that the Consumer Forum had no jurisdiction over billing disputes.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the dispute regarding the defective meter was not referred to the Electrical Inspector as required by law. It proposed to direct the parties to refer the dispute to the Electrical Inspector and be bound by the Inspector's decision. The appellant was directed to refund the excess amount if found by the Inspector.
Issues: The main issue was the excessive billing and the alleged defective meter. The jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum over billing disputes was also raised as an issue.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the dispute regarding the defective meter should have been referred to the Electrical Inspector for adjudication as per provisions of law. The parties were directed to be bound by the decision of the Electrical Inspector.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, and the judgment of the District Forum was modified to direct the parties to refer the dispute to the Electrical Inspector and be bound by the Inspector's decision. The appellant was directed to refund the amount deposited with the Commission.
JUDGMENT
U.B. Saha, President. (Oral)—The instant appeal is filed by the appellants Chief Managing Director, Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as T.S.E.C.L) Bidyut Bhaban, Agartala and Senior Manager, Sonamura Electrical Sub-Division under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the judgment dated 13.06.2016 passed by the Ld. District Consumers Disputes Redressal Forum, West Tripura, Agartala (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Case No. C.C. 17 of 2015 whereby and whereunder the Ld. District Forum partly allowed the complaint case directing the appellants to refund the electricity charges for 451 units and also pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 1,000/- to the petitioner within two months, if the aforesaid amount is not paid, then the same will carry interest @9% per annum.
2. Heard Ms. Sujata Deb (Gupta), Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellants (hereinafter referred to as opposite party nos.1 & 2) as well as Shri Swarup Pandit, Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondent (hereinafter referred to as complainant).
3. The brief facts of the case is that the complainant Sri Nripendra Datta, owner of a Grill Welding House applied for electricity connection to the opposite party no.2 and accordingly, the electricity connection was provided in the year 2003. The allegation of the complainant is that, in the year 2011, the complainant found that the meter provided by the opposite party no.2 became defective. After receipt of the complaint from the complainant, the opposite party no.2 changed the defective meter by providing a new meter in the month of September 2012. After installation of the new meter, the complainant again complained to the appellant-opposite party no.2 informing him that the new meter is also defective one. Then the opposite party no.2 sent some persons for checking the new meter installed in the factory premises of the complainant and according to those persons, the meter was O.K. In the month of December, 2012 and January, 2013, the opposite parties raised the bill for the aforesaid period of 551 units which was according to the complainant, abnormal and higher in side. The opposite parties raised the bill for the period up to 16.12.2011 - 55 units, 10.01.2012 - 55 units, 15.02.2012 - 55 units, 06.03.2012 - 55 units, 16.04.2012 - 55 units, 04.05.2012 - 55 units, 04.06.2012 - 55 units and 04.07.2012 - 55 units i.e. from 16.12.2011 to 04.07.2012, the energy bills were raised 55 units per month as provisional, but all on a sudden, for the month of December 2012 and January 2013, the opposite party raised the bill for 551 units without examining the complaint of the complainant regarding his allegation that the subsequently installed meter is also defective one.
4. The opposite parties appeared by way of filing written objection denying the claim of the complainant. It is stated that the complainant's prayer is vague and unreasonable and the same is liable to be rejected. It is also contended that the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to decide a dispute regarding the excess billing as there is a specific Forum for deciding the dispute between the complainant and the opposite parties i.e. Tripura Electricity Regulatory Commission, wherein Chief Grievance Redressal Officer is functioning to decide billing disputes.
5. Ld. District Forum hearing the parties and considering the evidence on record passed the impugned judgment as stated (supra).
6. Ms. Deb (Gupta), Ld. Counsel submits that the complainant has running a welding house and in a welding house, consumption of electricity may vary time to time. She also submits that according to the Ld. District Forum also, consumption of electricity in a welding house sometime may be higher and sometime may be lower. But the Ld. District Forum has passed the impugned judgment on presumption without deciding that aspects of billing of the higher amount.
7. Mr. Pandit, Ld. Counsel appearing for t
