The instant case was started on the basis of a petition of complaint filed by one Smt. Rumu Bhadra Roy W/o. Sri Pradip Kr. Bhadra Roy, R/O. S.M. Pally, P.S. English Bazar, P.O. Jhaljhalia, Dist. – Malda (W.B.) PIN – 732 102 u/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which was registered as Consumer Case No. 96/2017.

The fact of the case as revealed from the petition of complaint as well as from the evidence is that the complainant is a bona fide consumer of the O.Ps bearing Consumer ID No. 342098355, Meter No. G1151382.

The complainant is a house wife and her husband is a retired Government employee.     

It has been further stated that the complainant is very much eager regarding the payment of electricity bill raised by the Electricity Department on the basis of actual consumption of electricity which was duly reflected in the meter. It has been further stated that the meter reader most of the time do not record the consumption of electricity on the Yellow Card. The complainant several times requested the O.P. to make necessary entries in the yellow card after taking meter reading. The complainant several times requested the O.Ps to record the meter reading. The complainant is a consumer under the category of domestic and used to pay Rs. 348/- (Rupees Three Hundred Forty Eight Only) before consumption. All on a sudden on 17/11/2017 the O.P. sent a bill of Rs. 1,51,463/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty One Thousand Four Hundred Sixty Three Only) and after receiving the same bill the complainant became perplexed and such bill is highly inflated and without any basis. Thereafter, the complainant made a written prayer for rectification of the bill. Ultimately, there was no fruitful result as such the complainant has come to this Forum to redress her remedy.

The petition has been contested by the O.Ps by filing written version denying all the material allegations as leveled against the O.Ps contending inter alia that the instant case is not maintainable in its present form.

The further defense case is that since 2015 due to the lock of the room the meter reader failed to enter into the premises where the meter was installed as such the meter reader could not record any consumption of electricity.

The further defense case is that the original sanction load is 0.82 K.V.A. with the knowledge of the O.Ps and due to the lock of door room the consumption of electricity was not taken by the meter reader as such the bill was generated to the extent. The further defense case is that on getting the prayer regarding the bill the Assistant Engineer – Station Manager along with Divisional Manager visited the house on 13/12/2017 and they had to wait for half an hour for opening the meter room but anybody came from the house, after half an hour later one man came out from the rickshaw and identified himself as son of Ruma Bhadra Roy and ultimately neither the complainant nor his son allowed the Assistant Engineer, Divisional Engineer to inspect the meter. So considering such facts and circumstances the instance case is liable to be dismissed without cost. 

During the trial the son of the complainant Saurabh Bhadra Roy  was examined as PW-1 and cross-examined. During the trial he filed some documents as per Firisty of xerox copy. No other witness was examined on behalf of the complainant on the other hand no examination on behalf of the O.P.

Now the point for determination: Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for?

::DECISION WITH REASONS::

It is well settled principle of Law that a bona fide consumer will pay the electricity bill according to the consumption of electricity which will be reflected in the meter and the said meter reading will be taken by any authorized staff of the Department. According to the argument as advanced by the Ld.Lawyer of the complainant is that the meter reading was not taken for a long for which the complainant cannot take the liability to pay the huge amount of bill. So the necessary order may be passed for correction of the electric bill. On the other hand the Ld.Lawyer of the O.P. vehemently argued that it is the fault of the complainant who did not allow the authorized employee of the WBSEDCL to record the meter reading for which the complainant will have to suffer. He further argued that after receiving the prayer of the complainant about the bill the Assistant Engineer and the Divisional Engineer went to the premises to inspect the meter but neither the complainant nor her son allowed the said officer to enter into the premises to inspect the meter. It is a fact that the Assistant Engineer

and the Divisional Engineer were not permitted to enter into the premises for which it indicates that the complainant was responsible for the reasons best known to her. So the argument raised by Ld.Lawyer of the O.P. that the complainant will have to suffer for her own misdeed.  The complainant did not file any document to show how the bill is excessive.       

Moreover, in view of the Case Law decided by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in First Appeal No.  A/907/2017 and Revision Petition No. RP102 /2018 arising from an order of this Forum the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal held that when there is a dispute as regards to the unit of bills the complainant will have to file an application before the Grievance Redressal Officer or Central Grievance Redressal Officer or the Ombudsman under the Provision of Regulation No. 3.5 West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission. So considering the facts and circumstances the instant case is not maintainable in its present form. The Ld.Lawyer of the complainant refers case laws reported in (2013) 8 Supreme Court Case 491(U.P. Power Corporation & Others Vs. Anis Ahmad ) and another case CESC Vs. Smt. Nilima Ghorui.

But the case law as referred by the Ld.Lawyer reported in (2013)8 S.C.C.491 has been mentioned in the findings of the Hon’ble State Commission, West Bengal.

In the case of conflicting decision of the same bench the latter will prevail.

The decision of the reported case law submitted by the Ld. Lawyer of complainant (CESC vs. Smt. Nilima Ghorui) was decided on 12/06/2017 whereas the decision of First A/907/2017 is dated 18/08/2017 and the decision in R.P. Case No. 102/2018 is dated 02/09/2019.

So the case law submitted by the Ld.Lawyer of the complainant with reference to (CESC vs. Smt. Nilima Ghorui) is not applicable as the decision decided earlier than the decision of First A/907/2017 is dated 18/08/2017 and the decision in R.P. Case No. 102/2018 is dated 02/09/2019.

C.F. paid is correct.

Hence, ordered that

the case be and the same is dismissed on contest without any cost

Let a copy of this judgment be given to the Complainant/O.P. free of cost on proper application.