JUDGMENT

The instant case was instituted on the basis of a petition of complaint filed by the complainant Alimuddin, S/o. R Rahaman, Vill & P.O. Kashimpur, PS:Chanchal, Dist: Malda (W.B) PIN – 732 139.  u/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which was registered as Consumer Case No.41/2018.

The fact of the case as revealed from the petition of complaint as well as from the evidence is that the complainant is a consumer of Malotipur Electric Supply of Chanchal area.  The O.P. on checking out the inflated bill through the meter of the complainant when the electric connection was out of order. The complainant submitted a written complaint before the Station Manager Malotipur Customer Care Centre (hereinafter called O.P.2)for replacement of the meter on15/02/2016but O.P. No. 2 remained indifferent. So the complainant filed a written complaint before Assistant Director In-charge Malda Regional Office C.A. F.B.P. Malda R.O. directed the O.P. No. 2 to appear before the above office on 02/03/2017 but the O.P. did not appear. So as per the advice of the Assistant Director –In-Charge the complainant has come to this Forum now Commission to file a case praying for replacement of the meter, rectification of bill and compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) and any other relief as the complainant is entitled to.                    

The W.B.S.E.D.C.L. contested the case by filing written version denying all the material allegations as levelled against the O.P. contending inter alia that the instant case is not maintainable in its present form. There is no cause of action to file the case against the O.Ps, the case is also barred under the principle of waiver, estoppels and acquiescence. The case is also barred by law of limitation.                            

The definite defense case is that after receiving two written complaints from the petitioner the energy meter was inspected and reading also taken as 17365 KWH dt.04/06/2016 against the meter No. LF510162. As a result of improper meter reading the bill remains inflated. After detection of the defect of the meter in December, 2016 it was replaced on 09/01/2017being No. GX046149.

The further definite defense case is that the new energy meter was fully utilized by the complainant for cultivation of paddy in boro season in the year 2017. He also utilized the previous energy meter for cultivation of five seasons paddy crops for three consecutive years starting from 2014 to 2016 which is calculated as  5 X 1856 = 9280 KWH. The reading of the previous energy meter was 19673 KWH, which is not tallied with the original reading. He also utilized the electric connection for using his pump set in the year 2017. The complainant is a habitual defaulter as after receiving intimation on 12/07/2018 the complainant did not turn up to pay the outstanding bill of June,2018 amounting to Rs. 93,639/-(Rupees Ninety Three Thousand Six Hundred Thirty Nine Only) within 27/07/2018.So the O.P. disconnected the electric connection. His present due has been raised up to Rs. 94,709/- (Rupees Ninety Four Thousand Seven Hundred Nine Only) excluding disconnection and reconnection charges. The energy bill of the new meter has been correctly raised.  So dismissal of the case has been prayed for.                            

In order to prove the case the complainant has filed Affidavit-in-Chief. He did not adduce any evidence.

On the other hand the O.P. files questionnaires for cross-examination of the complainant.

Answer to the question was not given by the complainant. The complainant filed the documents.

The O.P. did not adduce any evidence.

Both sides did not file written notes on argument.

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

::DECISION WITH REASONS::

In the petition of complaint and the affidavit-in-chief the complainant submits that he is a regular consumer of Malotipur Electric Supply and after noticing the inflative bill requested the O.P. to change the previous meter but the O.P. did not pay any heed to his prayer. Although the O.P. did not appear in C.A.F.B.P. to meet A.D. In-charge of C.A.& F.B.P. after receiving summon from him so he has filed this case and whatever he mentioned in the written version is totally false and baseless. 

In order to defend the case the O.P. filed questionnaires and also in the written version the O.P. submitted that the petitioner utilized the previous energy meter in 5 seasonal cultivation for three consecutive years i.e. from 2014 to 2016. The previous meter showed the improper reading and also found defective for which they replaced the old meter by a new energy meter 09.01.2017. 

After installation of the new energy meter in 2017 the complainant also utilized the electric connection for running a pump set. The new energy meter showed correct reading and also the amount of bill was correct. The complainant was a habitual defaulter in payment of the bill. So the O.P. disconnected the electric connection for non-payment of electric bills.

But here it is to be mentioned that when there is a dispute as regards to the amount of bill the matter is to be referred to the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission.

According to the Regulation 3.5.1 (a) “in a case there is any dispute in respect of the bill amount, the ‘Consumer’ may lodge a complaint with the Grievance Redressal Officer or the Central Grievance Redressal Officer of the Licensee.  And thereafter to the Ombudsman in appeal against the order of the Grievance Redressal Officer of the Central Grievance Redressal Officer in accordance with the provisions of the concerned Regulations. In such a case, the aggrieved consumer, pending disposal of the dispute, may, under protest, pay the lesser amount out of the following two options…….”

In this regard, the Ld.Lawyer of the O.Ps refers a case law of Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in first Appeal No. A/907/2017(Divisional Engineer) and Divisional Manager, Dakshin Dinnajpur Division Vs. Smt. Asha Das wherein the Hon’ble State Commission held that the District Forum now Commission has no jurisdiction to dispute the matter when there is  a dispute as regards to the bill amount wherein the Hon’ble State Commission suggested that the complainant may approach to R.G.R.O.

So considering such facts and circumstances the instant case is not maintainable in this Forum now Commission. Hence, the case is liable to be dismissed.                      

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.Ps free of cost on proper application.