Order No. 13 Dated –25.04.2022

            Record is put up for order in connection with Miscellaneous Application dated 06.03.2021.

            By filing the impugned application OPs alleged that District Commission has no power to admit the complainant petition in terms of Regulation No. 3.5 of West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission published in Kolkata Gazett (Extra - Ordinary) dated 07.08.2013 being Notification No. 55. In case there is any dispute in respect of the billed 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 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 Learned Advocate for the OPs placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble SCDRC (Sri Dilip Kumar Biswas – Vs- District Engineer, Serampore Mahesh, CESC Ltd. & Another, Order of the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta passed in W.P. 3966(W) of 2018 (Kunal Singh –Vs- The CESC Ltd. & Another), W.P.A. No. 4154 of 2021, W.P.A. No. 8146 of 2021 and W.P.A. No. 2320 of 2021.

            Complainant opposed the prayer of the OPs without filing any written objection. In course of hearing learned Advocate for the complainant submitted that the complainant paid bill amount for the month of February, 2019 to May, 2020 but all on a sudden bill for the month of June, 2020 raised without meter reading and the complainant paid Rs. 710/- to the CESC to avoid future multiplicity. He further contended that OPs raised electricity bill for the month of July, 2020 showing consumption of excessive units without adjustment of previous payment of Rs. 3,670/- OPs again raised arbitran and unjustified bill for the month of September, 2020 in default of payment, electric line would be disconnected. Amount claimed by the CESC is too much excessive. Ld. Advocate for the complainant further contended that the relief under the Consumer Protection Act is available to the complainant in spite of availability of the Commission under the Electricity Act as the latter Act does not exclude the applicability of the Consumer Protection Act for granting relief to a consumer in appropriate cases.

            In support of the contention the Ld. Advocate of the complainant placed the judgment of the Hon’ble NCDRC reported in I (2005) CPJ 107 (NC), Order of the Hon’ble SCDRC passed in SC case No. 99/R/2007, Final order dated 02.04.2018 passed in First Appeal No. FA/571 of 2014, Final order of the Hon’ble SCDRC (Sailen Barman –Vs- The Station Manager, WBSEDCL & Ors.) Judgment of the Hon’ble NCDRC reported in 2014 (1) CPR 242 (NC), Judgment of the Hon’ble NCDRC reported in 2012(2) CPR 484 (NC).

            We have considered the arguments of the Ld. Advocate for the parties and examined the record. It is not in dispute that the complainant has filed the instant complaint before the Commission, on the allegation against the service provider 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.

            In support of the contention of the complainant reliance is placed on the order in the case of CESC Limited –Vs- M/s Foto Art of the Hon’ble SCDRC. Relying on the aforesaid order it is contended by the Ld. Advocate for the complainant that the present case relates to a billing dispute on consumption of electricity and in such cases relief is provided under the Consumer Protection Act. The aforesaid order does not appear to be helpful as the question involved in the said case was related to the scope of granting ex-parte interim order of injunction. The judgment relied by the complainant in case of  1) Sri Amit Sengupta & another –Vs- Manaqging Director, CESC Ltd., 2) Sailen Barman –Vs- The Station Manager, WBSEDCL & Ors, 3) Shri Kanhiya Lal –Vs- Dakshin Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. reported in 2014(1) CPR 242 (NC) and 4) U P Power Corporation Ltd. –Vs-  Ram Kishan Rastogi reported in 2012(2) CPR 484 (NC) also does not help the complainant. The above cited decisions are in respect of Defective Meter, Burn electricity Meter, Faulty Meter and Illegality and deficiency of services on the part of the service provider. On the contrary, the order dated 16.11.2016 of the Hon’ble SCDRC passed in First Appeal No. A/914/2015 supported the case of the CESC Ltd. regarding deposit of 50% bill amount, inspection of Meter by RGRO/CGRO and reconnection of electric supply subject to the abide by the result of inspection.

            On the contrary, the order dated 05.03.2019 passed by the Hon’ble SCDR in connection with First Appeal No. A/121/2019 appear to be help full as the question involved in the said case is totally helpful as regards maintainability of the present consumer case. The other judgments relied by the CESC Ltd. also does not helpful to the OPs as regards maintainability of a Writ Petition in view of provisions in the Electricity Act, which is not relevant for deciding the maintainability of the present case.

            It is well settled that in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2013) 8 SCC 401 (U P 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 section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act but it is limited to the dispute relating to “unfair trade practice” or a “restrictive trade practice” adopted by the service provider or if the 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.

            New Consumer Protection Act, 2019 was passed. The Act has been partially made effective on 20.07.2020. The earlier Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been repealed. In the new act “Consumer” as defined in section 2(7) of the Act Regulation No. 3.5 of 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:-

            The materials on record indicates that in order to substantiate the allegation of raising excessive bills for the month of July, 2020 & September, 2020, the complainant did not approach the Regional Grievance Redressal officer (RGRO or Central Grievance Redressal Officer (CGRO). The complainant has proceeded in a wrong way by lodging a 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 a power 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 a court 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 in law in view of the observation 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. 50. Accordingly, the prayer of the OPs is allowed on contest but without any cost.

Thus, the MAs being No. 301/2021 is disposed off.

Consequently, the consumer case is dismissed.

Pending application , if any, also stand disposed of.