Dated: 21.03.2024

Gita Verma (Judicial Member)

Order

1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 22.09.2017 passed in Complaint case no. 28 of 2016 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jamui whereby and whereunder the District Forum has held that all the three O.Ps (appellants) are liable for deficiency in service and has allowed the complaint on contest and has set aside the electricity bill for July, 2016 for Rs. 27,527/- and all other surcharges in the name of complainant and has directed them to prepare and issue fresh bill for July, 2016 on the basis of average power consumption during preceding one year which shall be payable by the complainant within three weeks of the receipt of that bill.
2. The case of complainant was that he received excessive electricity consumption bill from the O.Ps for the month of July ,2016 amounting to Rs. 27,527/-. He filed a petition in the office of O.Ps on 19.08.2016 to correct the bill and issue revised bill, but they did not respond and disconnected his electricity supply line. It amounted to deficiency in service hence, the complaint.
3. The O.Ps appeared, filed written statement and contested the case. They took the plea that the bill was correct. So, it was not revised. The complainant was consuming electricity for more than his sanctioned load capacity. So, the bill of July, 2016 was sent at the revised tariff rate when it was detected. So, there was no deficiency in service on their part. As such the complaint was fit to be dismissed.
4. Heard the learned lawyers for both parties and perused the record.
5. It has been argued on behalf of the appellants, though, not mentioned either in their written statement or in their memo of appeal that the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the case because there is a special Consumer Grievance Redressal forum constituted under section 42(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and in support of it they have filed Xerox copy of the order passed by this State Commission in Revision No. 12 of 2019. On going through it and the aforesaid provision of Electricity Act, 2003 which is a Central Act we find and hold that the District Forum has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of dispute between both parties.
6. For the reasons, mentioned above the impugned order is set aside and the appeal stands allowed on contest. The complainant may go to the aforesaid special Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum constituted under section 42(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003 settlement of his dispute regarding the aforesaid bill. Parties to bear their own cost.

(Md. Shamim Akhtar)                                                                                                           (Gita Verma)

     Judicial Member                                                                                                           Judicial Member

Md. Fariduzzama