Present (1) Nisha Nath Ojha,
District & Sessions Judge (Retd.)
(2) Smt. Karishma Mandal,
Member
Date of Order : 21.02.2018
Nisha Nath Ojha
- In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-
- To direct the opposite party to replace electric meter ( which was already burnt and lying in the same condition) and to make necessary correction in the electric bill.
- To direct the Bihar State Housing Board, Patna to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- ( Rs. Five lacs only ) to the complainant for mental and physical agony as compensation as well as litigation costs.
- The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-
The petitioner has filed a complaint stating therein that he is resident of MIG house no. 181 Hanuman Nagar, P.S. Patrakar Nagar, Patna. After completing all the formality on 02.09.2005 he was given commercial connection although she had applied for domestic connection.
It has been further stated that primarily MIG house no. 141 of Hanuman Nagar referred above is a disputed house which was finally allotted in the year 1995 and possession was given in the year 1999.
It has been further stated that primarily MIG house no. 232 Lohiya Nagar, kankarbagh, Patna was allotted to the allottee but by the order of Hon’ble High Court Patna ( annexure – 2) MIG house no. 232 was interchanged from a widow quota to military quota and in place of MIG 232 MIG house no. 181 was given to allottee. That the bill against electric consumption were being paid by the complainant but after the electric meter was burnt on 19.05.2009 but without making any reading in absence of the burnt meter. The concerned respondent sent the bill of Rs. 21,184/- dated 24.11.2009 and Rs. 37,000/- dated 31.01.2012 ( annexure- 3 and 4) which were duly paid.
It is asserted by the complainant that the bills are being assessed without reading any meter which stood burnt on 19.05.2009. It is also stated that complainant and her husband are not residing regularly in that house but opposite party have sent bill more than Rs. 50,000/-.
It further appears that during pendency of this case a petition U/s 13 ( C) of consumer protection act was filed for interim relief. Thereafter order dated 02.05.2017 was passed by this forum directing the complainant to file the application for changing the meter as he had filed earlier and if such application is filed then counsel of opposite party no. 1 will inform the department in this regard and department will pass appropriate order within 15 days of receiving such application.
On behalf of opposite parties a written statement has been filed stating therein that as the complainant was granted commercial connection on 02.09.2005 hence the bill was issued which is applicable in the commercial connection.
It has been further stated that as the complainant was provided electric connection for commercial purpose hence the complainant is not a consumer U/s 2(1)(d) of consumer protection act.
It has been further stated that bill of Rs. 2005/- onwards had been challenged in the year 2014 hence this case is barred by U/s 24(A) of the consumer protection act.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
It is admitted case of the complainant that she was provided commercial connection although she had applied for domestic connection.
It also appears that bill was issued under commercial head and the said electric meter was burnt on 19.05.2009 thereafter the bill was assessed without reading the meter and the meter was not changed thus it is clear that very old bill are under challenged in this case.
From bare perused of complaint etc. and written statement of opposite party it transpires that several disputed facts are to be decided in this complaint. The question arises when the meter was burnt in 2009 and the opposite party did not changed it despite application by the complainant then why this complaint has been filed in 2014.
It goes without saying that this forum has no right to decide commercial as well as disputed fact.
It is also surprising that when commercial meter was provided in place of domestic meter then the complainant did not take appropriate steps seriously at initial stage. Simply filing an application for any purpose is not suffice in the eye of law.
No purpose will be served in repeating the fact again and again.
As this complaint petition relates to commercial as well as disputed fact, this forum has no jurisdiction to decide such matter.
However, the complainant is at liberty to pursue this matter before appropriate authority/court in accordance with law.
For the discussion made above, this complaint case stands dismissed but without cost for want of jurisdiction.
Member President
