Before,

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar, Patna

Appeal  No. 30 of 2020

1. Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Katihar
2. Assistant Electrical Engineer (Urban), Electric Supply sub-Division, Katihar 

                                                                                                                                                                     ............... Appellants

Versus

Rekesh Dalmia, S/o- Uma Shankar Dalmia, Resident of Bara Bazar (Durgapur Mohalla), Rishi Bhawan Road, PO- Katihar, District- Katihar

                                                                                                                                                                           ........... Respondent

Counsel for the appellant: Adv. Ajay Kumar Gautam

Counsel for Respondent- Adv. Satendra Kumar Dubey

Before:

Miss Gita Verma (Judicial Member)

Mr. Raj Kumar Pandey (Member)

Dated: 04.09.2023

Miss Gita Verma (Judicial Member)

Order

1. This appeal has been filed by the opposite parties being complaint case no. 04 of 2014 decided by the District Consumer Forum, Katihar on 05.10.2018 in favour of the complainant.
2. The case of complainant is that he is a consumer of North Bihar Power Distribution Co. Ltd. and his consumer no. is 1253/BBR/DS/1836. This connection is in the name of his father Uma Shankar Dalmia (since deceased). The complainant was regularly depositing his electric consumption bill. He received the bill of Dec, 2012 in Jan, 2013 in which units consumed was shown as 22 units but tariff was changed for 80 units. He paid that bill. Thereafter, he filed application in the office of O.P.no. 2 for correction of the bill. They did not make correction in the bill. In this connection the junior engineer of the office of O.P. no. 2 verified the meter of the complainant but did not submit any report regarding meter verification. It is the further case of the complainant that O.Ps sent the bill of Oct, 2013 to him in Nov, 2013 of Rs. 16,994/-. The complainant had paid the last bill of Rs. 338/- only on 23.09.2013. Then again the complainant had requested the O.Ps for correction of his electric bill according to the meter reading and actual consumption but they did not hear him. So, the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service with him. For this reason he filed the aforesaid complaint before the District Consumer Protection Forum, Katihar. He has asked for the following reliefs:

1. O.Ps be ordered to make necessary correction in his electric bills with effect from Oct, 2013 onwards.
2. He may be granted a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for mental agony.
3. He may further be granted Rs. 10,000/- as litigation cost.

3. The O.Ps appeared on notice before the District Consumer Forum but they did not file any written statement inspite of several adjournments given to them for it. The District Consumer Forum directed them to check the electric meter of the complainant and to produce before it the corrected bill of the complainant according to the meter reading but they did not comply the order of District Consumer Forum. So, the District Consumer Forum held the opposite parties responsible for gross deficiency in service.
4. For the aforesaid reasons the District consumer Forum directed the O.Ps by the impugned order dated 05.10.2018 to give rectified bills to the complainant for aforesaid period within 30 days of the order and to furnish its copies to the District Consumer Forum also. It further ordered O.P. no. 1 to pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation to the complainant and Rs. 3,000/- as litigation cost within 30 days of the date of order.
5. Being aggrieved by the impugned order the opposite parties have filed this appeal. They have stated in the memo of appeal that the impugned order is bad in law as well as facts. They have further stated in memorandum of appeal that U/s 42 (5) of the Electricity Act, 2003 a consumer grievance redressal forum has been created to redress the grievance of consumes. So, the complainant should have approach aforesaid consumer grievance redressal forum if he had any grievance against the bill or bills sent to him. The District Consumer Protection Forum could not entertain the aforesaid grievance of the complainant. It has also been stated in the memorandum of appeal that this State Commission has held in Appeal no. 628 of 2007 that if there is any dispute between the consumer and electricity department regarding the bills, the consumer should approach the consumer grievance redressal forum only according to section 42 (5) of the Electricity Act, 2003.
6. In support of the aforesaid contention the appellant has filed web copy of an order dated 23.07.2014 of the Hon’ble Patna High Court in CWJC no. 22520 of 2013 in which it has been held on page no. 8 that in view of the constitution of consumer grievance redressal forum U/s 42 (5) of Electricity Act, 2003, the jurisdiction of adjudicate all such matters vests in the Consumer grievance redressal forum constituted under the electricity Act.
7. The learned lawyer for the appellant had filed a Xerox copy of order of appeal no. 628 of 2007 also decided by this State Commission in support of the ground of the appeal taken by him. On perusing the aforesaid judgment, we find that the above mentioned ground of the appeal taken by the appellants is supported by it.
8. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record. On considering their argument and the other facts mentioned above we find and hold that the District Consumer Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain to hear and decide such complaint in view of Section 42 (5) of the Electricity Act, 2003. In that view of the matter the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
9. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside, parties are directed to bear their own cost.

​

Md. Fariduzzama