Order NO. 17 Dated: 06.03.2023
Record is put up for order in connection with Miscellaneous Application bearing No. 203 of 2021 dated 15.02.2021 filed by the complainant.
The matter was heard on 02.03.2022. On perusal of the record it is found that one Miscellaneous Application bearing No.333 of 2020 dated 28.12.2020 was filed by the complainant on the ground exorbitant bill. Therefore, both the application are taken up for consideration. None was present for the complainant at the time of hearing on repeated calls. Ld. Advocate for the OP is present. Head the Ld. Advocate for the OP. Considered.
By filing the impugned applications the complainant alleged that due to negligence in service on part of the OP a huge amount of electric bill is sent to the petitioner comparing with the previous bills. Since February 2019 to May 2020 electricity bills sent by the OP were within the average mode of amount Rs.500/- to Rs.600/- . But all on a sudden the bill for the month of June 2020 sent by the OP without reading but showing 170units which cost Rs.1130/-and billfor the month of July 2020 showing reading 476 and without adjusting the previous payment an amount of Rs.4090/- is directed to pay within 29/06/2020. The complainant lodged a complaint by filing an application dated 22/09/2020 being Docket No.92517 to the OP. But in the month of September 2020again another bill was raised amounting to Rs.15,250/- with warning to disconnect the electric line and a letterdated 19/11/2020 served upon the complainant to pay the bill amount failing which the electric connection will be disconnected immediately.Moreover, the OP i.e. CESC Ltd directed the complainant over phone being No. 913344032000 on 11/02/2021 to pay the disputed bill amount otherwise they will be forced to disconnect the complainant’s electric line during the pendency of the case. According to complainant those bills are exorbitant and excessive.Hence the complainant approached this commission with prayer for a direction upon the OP to restrain themselves from disconnection of electric supply of the complainant till disposal of the case.
Ld. Advocate for the OP opposed without filing any written objection and argued that District Commission has no power to consider Miscellaneous Applications in terms of Regulation No. 3.5 of West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission published in Kolkata Gazette dated 07/08/2013 being Notification No. 55. In case there is any dispute of the billed amount, the consumer may lodge a complaint with Grievance Redressal Officer or the Central Grievance Redressal Officer of the licensee and thereafter to the Ombudsman preparing appeal against the order of GRO or CGRO. The Complainant had ample opportunity to avail the procedure prescribed therein and a court of law should not interfere with the codified legislation.
In support of the contention, the Ld. Advocate for the OPs placed order dated 05/03/2019 passed by the Hon’ble SCDRC in First Appeal No. A/121/2019(Sri Dilip Kumar Biswas Vs. District Engineer, Serampore Mahesh, CESC Ltd. & Another and others), order dated 13/12/2019 of the Hon’ble SCDRC in First Appeal No. A/968/2017 (1. The Station manager-cum-Assistant Engineer, WBSEDCL, Gangarampur Customer Care, Gangarampur, Dist. DakshinDinajpur. 2.TheDivi. Managar, WBSEDCL, P.O.& P.S. – Balurghat, Dist. DakshinDinajpur Vs. Rasmina – Rasenawara Bibi), order dated 25/04/2022 of the Hon’ble DCDRC Kolkata Unit – II in the CC/356/2020 (Mousin Khan Vs. CESC &Ors), order dated 30/11/2022 of the Hon’ble SCDRC in First Appeal No. A/10/2021 (Station Managar, WBSEDCL &Ors vs. Mr. Ananda Kumar Upadhyay).
We have considered the submissions of the Ld. Advocate for the Parties and examined the record. It is not in dispute that the complainant has filed the complaint before the Commission, on the allegation against the service provide on the ground of charging of price in excess of the price fixed by or under any law. Thus, it is essentially a billing dispute.
It is well settled that in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2013) SCC 401 (UP Power Corporation Ltd &Ors – Vs – Anis Ahmed) the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Consumer Protection Act runs parallel for giving redressal to any person who falls within the meaning of consumer as defined in Consumer Protection act but it is limited to the dispute relating to “unfair trade practice” or a “restrictive trade practice” adopted by service provider or if consumer suffers from deficiency in service or hazardous service or the service provider has charged a price in excess of the price fixed by or under any law. Now Regulation 3.5 of the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission published in Kolkata Gazette (Extra – Ordinary) dated 07/08/2013 being Notification No.55 which has a statutory force provides:
“3.5.1 (a) – In case there is any disputes in respect of the billed amount, the consumer may lodged a complaint with the grievance Redressal Officer of the Central Grievance Redressal Officer of the licensee and thereafter to the Ombudsman in appeal against the order of th Grievance Redressal Officer or the Central Grievance Redressal Officer, In accordance with the provisions of the concerned regulations. In such a case, the aggrieved consumer, pending proposal of the dispute, may under protest, pay the lesser amount out of the following two options:
- An amount equal to sum claimed from him in the disputed bill, or
- An amount equal to the electricity chargesdue from him for each month calculated on the basis of average charge for electricity paid by him during the preceding six months.
The amount so calculated provisionally as per Clause (ii) above by the license and tendered by the consumer shall be accepted by the licensee against that bill on provisional basis.
3.5.2 If any aggrieved consumer makes a provisional payment, as aforesaid, no penal measure including disconnection for non-payment shall be taken against him till the dispute is settled either at the level of the Grievance Redressal Officer or the Central Grievance Redressal Officer or the Ombudsman, as the case may be. However, imposition of a delayed payment surcharge, if applicable, shall not be count towards a penal measure for this purpose. However. If the aggrieved consumer does not pay the provisional payment then disconnection for the non-payment shall be effected if disconnection notice is issued as per regulation 4.1 of these Regulations.
The material record indicates that in order to substantiate the allegation of raising excessive electric bills for the month of June 2020 to September 2020, the complainant did not approach the Regional Grievance Redressal Officer (RGRO) or Central Grievance Redressal Officer (CGRO). The complainant procced in a wrong way by lodging a Consumer Complaint before the District Commission without seeking any remedy in accordance with notification No.55/WBERC dated 07/08/2013. In other words, when the regulation has a statutory force which has been made in exercise of apower conferred under Section 181(1)(2) (x) read with section 50 of the Electricity Act,2003 the complainant had/has ample opportunity to avail the procedure prescribed therein. It is well settled that acourt of law should not interfere with the codified legislation.
In view of the discussion above, coupled with submission made by the Ld. Advocate of the both sides, we hold that Consumer complaint is not maintainable in its present form and law in view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UP Power Corporation Ltd. (Supra) and the Regulation No. 3.5 of WBERC published in the Kolkata Gazette (Extra Ordinary) dated 07/08/2013 being Notification No.55.
Consequently the applications are summarily dismissed.
However, this order will not debar the complainant to approach the appropriate Forum in accordance notification NO.55/WBERC dated 08.07.2013 and if such complaint is filed with requisites, the RGRO or CGRO concerned is requested to dispose of the same within three months from the date of filing of such complaint in accordance with law.
The MAs being no 203/21 and 333/2020 are, thus, disposed of.
Consequently, the consumer complaint is dismissed.
Subsequently the pending MA being NO.302/2021 dated 26/03/2021 filed by the OP challenging the maintainability of the Complaint Petition also stand disposed of.
