'Suffered Unnecessary Ignominy And Harassment': Calcutta HC Orders WBSEDCL To Pay Rs 6 Lakhs Compensation To Consumer For Unauthorised Disconnection Of Electricity Supply

The Calcutta High Court on Friday directed the West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company (WBSEDCL) to pay an amount to the tune of Rs.6,07,000 to a consumer for unauthorised disconnection of electricity supply due to which the consumer had suffered unnecessary harassment. 

Calling the conduct of WBSEDCL as 'deplorable', Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya observed, 

"In cases such as the present one, it is the gross laches of the Distribution Licensee which compelled the respondent no.1, a consumer, to suffer unnecessary ignominy and harassment..As far as the conduct of the Distribution Licensee in the present case is concerned, the same is deplorable and the consumer was compelled to run from pillar to post at every point of time."

The Court further observed that the consumer had suffered due to the artistry disconnection of electricity supply by WBSEDCL and that even after repeated requests, no clear reason was disclosed by the electricity distribution company for taking such an action against the consumer. 

In the instant case, WBSEDCL had preferred the instant appeal against an order of the Electricity Ombudsman dated September 2, 2021 wherein WBSEDCL had been instructed to pay a compensation to the tune of Rs.1,21,400 to the consumer. 

The Court upheld such a grant of compensation but observed that the Electricity Ombudsman was incorrect in in deducting twenty per cent of the compensation amount from the total amount initially calculated at the rate of Rs.500 per month. 

Accordingly, the Court directed,

"Hence, there was no scope of reducing the total amount of compensation at the rate of Rs. 500/- per day, as calculated by the Ombudsman. Rather, in exercise of this court's powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the impugned order of the Ombudsman is modified to the effect that the Distribution Licensee shall pay compensation not to the tune of Rs.1,21,400/- as awarded but will pay a total amount of Rs.6,07,000/- to the consumer-respondent no.1 within a month from date, deducting any amount, if already paid pursuant to the impugned order of the Ombudsman."

Arguments

The counsel appearing for WBSEDCL observed that the Ombudsman had acted without jurisdiction in awarding damages to the consumer although the consumer had approached the Grievance Redressal Officer (GRO) after 90 days of the cause of action which is the limitation as per Clause 6.1 of Regulation 56 of the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission. 

It was further argued that the compensation was awarded from the date of the cause of action, that is, November 19, 2017, at the rate of the maximum amount of Rs.500/- per day, without any justification, although the law stipulates that Rs.500 or any part thereof can be awarded as compensation.

The Court was further apprised that although the Ombudsman had held that a claim for damages had not been established, yet he had merely deducted twenty per cent from the total amount of compensation and had ultimately awarded a lump sum compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,21,400 to the consumer without jurisdiction.

On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the consumer relied upon various communications to indicate that the cause of action had not crystallised before the consumer had approached the Grievance Redressal Officer (GRO) for the first time. The Court was apprised that the electricity connection had been disconnected on  November 19, 2017 and in the very next month, the consumer had approached the authorities seeking a clarification regarding the reason for disconnection.

Thereafter, several communications via e-mail were exchanged and despite the consumer having sent nearly 20 emails, the authorities did not provide any reply. Ultimately, he was compelled to approach the Grievance Redressal Officer (GRO) owing to such inaction on the part of WBSEDCL. It was further contended that upon being advised by the Ombudsman, the consumer had again approached the Grievance Redressal Officer challenging the disconnection.

It was further submitted that the cause of action of the consumer has been continuing day-to-day, in view of the extreme distress being suffered every day from the date of disconnection till date. Thus, it was argued that the Ombudsman was justified in passing the impugned award against WBSEDCL since the consumer has endured sufficient harassment to entitle him to such compensation.

Observations 

The Court at the outset noted that Clause 6.1 of Regulation 56 dated August 26, 2013 of the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission stipulates that the time limit for an aggrieved consumer to submit a written petition against a grievance is 90 days "from the date of occurrence of the cause of action".

Furthermore, upholding the contention of the consumer (respondent no.1 ) regarding the continuing cause of action, the Court observed further,  

"Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 is justified in arguing that the cause of action of the instant respondent no.1 continued de die in diem due to the harassment regularly being faced by the respondent no.1 in view of the disconnection of electricity, which is a basic necessity of life and part of the right to life of the respondent no.1."

The Court further held that in the alternative, the cause of action could not be said to have crystallized prior to the consumer being purportedly advised by the Ombudsman to prefer the specific challenge before the Grievance Redressal Officer. 

"The respondent no.1, in fact, had approached the GRO with the first complaint seeking explanation for the disconnection and the reasons therefor well within the limitation period of 90 days from the inception of the cause of action", the Court noted further. 

Thus, the Court opined that there did not arise any occasion for either the GRO or the Ombudsman to have dismissed the consumer's grievance on the ground of limitation. It was also observed that in view of the factual details averred by the consumer at every stage, in the instant case the issue of limitation has been a mixed question of fact and law, and not a pure question of law evident on the face of the pleadings. 

Opining further on the contention of the WBSEDCL that the claim of the consumer is time-barred, the Court observed, 

"In the absence of any controversy or challenge being taken out by the petitioner-Distribution Licensee before any of the forums below on the ground of limitation, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to say for the first time now that the claim of the respondent no.1 was time-barred."

It was further underscored that as far as the peculiar method of calculation of the Ombudsman is concerned, it is not a charity that was done by the Ombudsman but the legal right of the consumer to get damages at the rate of Rs.500/- per day. 

"The argument of the Distribution Licensee, that the Ombudsman failed to give any reason for having awarded the full amount of compensation payable in law, is belied by the deduction of twenty per cent of the total amount by the Ombudsman without any rhyme or reason", the Court opined further. 

Thus, the Court opined that the Ombudsman had acted without jurisdiction even in deducting twenty per cent of the compensation amount from the total amount initially calculated at the rate of Rs.500 per month, which comes to Rs.6,07,000. 

The Court further observed that in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court can even suo motu, review an illegal and arbitrary act of any authority or quasi-judicial forum. Hence, there is no fetter on the powers of the High Court to modify the order impugned, even if the challenge is at the instance of the Distribution Licensee, under the aegis of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it was stated further. 

Refusing to entertain a plea for grant of stay on the operation of the instant order for 3 months, the Court accordingly directed, 

"In such view of the matter, WPA 868 of 2022 is disposed of by modifying the order of the Ombudsman dated September 2, 2021 passed in connection with Representation No.W-12BB/2021 to the extent that the compensation/damages payable by the petitioner/Distribution Licensee to the respondent no.1- consumer shall be Rs.6,07,000/- which shall be paid by the Distribution Licensee to the respondent no.1 within March 4, 2022."

Case Title: West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited v. Sukanta Kumar Singha and Anr 

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 30

Click Here To Read/Download Order