Dt. 28.04.2016

JAGANNATH BAG, MEMBER

          The present appeal is directed against the Order, dated 13.01.2015, passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hooghly, in CC No. 81 of 2015, whereby the complaint was dismissed on contest, but without any cost.

          The complaint case, in brief, was as follows :

          The Complainant received the Electricity Bill for the months of February to April, 2013 and also another bill for the period from May to July, 2013. In respect of both the bills the Complainant found that the bills  were prepared without following the tariff rate printed on the back side of those bills. Accordingly, he requested the OP to refund the excess amounts of Rs. 352/- + Rs. 383/- equivalent to Rs. 735/-. In spite of request by the Complainant, the OPs did not refund the amount and by their letter, it was informed that the bills have been raised on the basis of latest revision of tariff which was not printed on the back side of the bill. The printed tariff being old and obsolete, the said printed tariff would not be applicable. The Complainant not being satisfied with the reply sent by the Station Manager, dated 14.3.2013, filed the complaint before the Ld. Forum below , alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

          The complaint was contested by the OP denying the material allegations. It was submitted by the OP that there was no deficiency in service on their part. The bills were claimed as per tariff order No. 22 dated 01.12.2012 passed by the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission for the year 2011-12 and 2012-13. It was also stated that the Divisional Manager by his letter dated 16.5.2013 informed the Complainant to follow the observation of WBERC to remove the confusion but instead of doing so, he preferred the complaint, though there was no deficiency in service on their part. Further, it was stated that a billing dispute can not be entertained by a Consumer Forum and as such, the complaint was liable to be dismissed.  

        Ld. Forum below having perused the petition of complaint and the relevant Electricity  Bills for the period from February to April 2013 observed that it was a billing dispute and as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CESC Ltd. Vs N.M. Banka and others, a dispute regarding electricity bill can not be adjudicated by the Consumer Forum, rather the consumer should apply before the Electrical Inspector designated as mentioned in the Electricity Act . Accordingly, the complaint was not found to be maintainable and hence the complaint was dismissed on contest.

          Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of the Ld. Forum below, the Complainant- turned-Appellant has come up before this Commission with prayer for direction to set aside the impugned order.

           The Complainant/Appellant in person submitted that the bills in question were raised by the Respondent/OPin excess of the rates printed on the back of the said bills. As per calculation the excess amount is refundable by the Respondent/OP which  the OP neglected to do in spite of written request and Ld. Forum below also failed to appreciate the fact that the Electricity Company  were raising bills  beyond the printed rates which is deceptive in nature  and also an unfair trade practice on the part of the OP/Respondent. There was a clear violation of their own terms as they raised bills beyond the printed tariff. The Ld. Forum below passed the order without application of judicial mind and as such the order was liable to be set aside.

          Ld. Advocate appearing for the Respondent i.e., Divisional Manager Chandannagar (D), WBSEDCL submitted that the bills sent to the Complainant/Appellant were pre- printed stationary bill forms and in such bills the old tariff rates were recorded. The tariff rate applicable to the consumer for the relevant period was different from the rates as printed on the back of the bills. As huge quantity of bill formats is printed at a time with some common instruction and information, it was not possible  to delete the old rates by inserting new tariff rates or to destroy the huge quantity bill formats which would have incurred a huge amount of monetary burden . There was actually no deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent . Further, the billing dispute should have been referred to the Grievance Redressal Officer or the Central Grievance Redressal Officer instead of filing the consumer complaint before the  Ld. Forum below who rightly adjudicated the complaint taking into consideration all  relevant facts and materials.

Decision with Reasons :

          We have gone through the Memorandum of appeal and copies of documents annexed with such appeal including copies of the electricity bills and the correspondences between the parties.

          The point for consideration is whether the impugned order suffers from material irregularity or any illegality .

          It is a fact that the Appellant / Complainant raised the issue of his Electricity Bills with the allegation that the rates as printed on the back side of the bill were not followed in raising the billing amount.

          It is also a fact that the  Appellant/Complainant had a ground to  question  correctness of calculation of the bills as per the tariff rates printed on the back of the bill. But at the same time it is also a fact that the OP in their communication  dated 16.05.2013 clarified their  position saying that the bills were claimed as per tariff order 22 dated 01.12.2012 passed by the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory  Commission for the year 2011-12 and 2012-13 which was available at WBERC website i.e., www.wbsedcl.in. It was also clarified that the old tariff was printed on the back of the pre-printed energy bills . Such clarifications furnished by the Electricity Company appear to be reasonable in nature, though the Complainant /Appellant had a prima facie cause of concern. In any case , the dispute raised by the Appellant/Complainant was a billing dispute which should have been referred to the appropriate authority, that is,  the Grievance Redressal Officer as provided under the Electricity Act and Regulations made there under and, in case the Consumer was not satisfied with the decision of Grievance Redressal Officer  , the Ombudsman should have been approached for redressal of the dispute in question. In the present case the Appellant/Complainant approached the Consumer Forum , without taking recourse to the legal provisions of the Electricity Act. Such act, i.e., filing the consumer complaint was pre-mature in nature. In the said circumstances we are inclined to hold that the impugned order needs no interference from our side. The appeal does not succeed. Hence,

Ordered

That the appeal be and the same is dismissed on contest , but without any cost. The impugned order is confirmed.