STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION

BIHAR, PATNA

Appeal No. 390 of 2019

1.  Junior Electrical Engineer, Electric Supply Section, Rajgir

2.  Senior Electrical Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Nalanda

3.  The S.D.O, Electricity Department, Biharsharif

                                                                                                        … Appellants

Versus

Ramesh Prasad, S/o- Sri Dhano Mahto, Resident of Village- Deepnagar, PS- Deepnagar, PO- Deepnagar, District- Nalanda

                                                                                               …. Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant: Adv. Ajay Kumar Gautam

Counsel for the Respondent: Adv. Satendra Kumar Dubey

Before,

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar, President

Mr. Ram Prawesh Das, Member

Dated 07.08.2023

As per Sanjay Kumar, President.

O r d e r

1. Present appeal has been filed on behalf of appellant/opposite party for setting aside the judgment and order dated 27.08.2019 passed in complaint case no. 35 of 2008 passed by Ld. District Consumer Forum, Nalanda (Biharsharif) whereby and whereunder the learned District Consumer Forum, Nalanda has directed appellant to issue revised electricity bill on the basis of 357 units after adjustment of the amount previously paid by the complainant within 30 days. It has further been directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and pecuniary loss and Rs. 5,000/- towards cost of litigation.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case as stated in complaint petition is that complainant is consumer of electricity board since 08.04.2013 and is regularly paying electricity bill on the basis of electricity bill provided by electricity board, however one inflated electricity bill dated 24.06.2018 was issued to complainant in which amount to be paid was shown as Rs. 9,680/- which was to be deposited by 19.07.2018 and complainant approached the opposite parties for rectification of the bill but no step was taken by opposite parties as such complainant filed a consumer complaint case before the District Consumer Forum, Nalanda for rectification of inflated electricity bill.
3. Notices were issued to opposite parties but inspite of valid service of notice they did not appear as such proceeding was heard ex-parte.
4. Electric connection was obtained by complainant on 23.09.2013 for one phase and load capacity was of 1KV for rural area. In disputed electricity bill  past reading dated 22.05.2018 shows units consumed as 1379 and, present reading taken on 24.06.2018 shows consumed unit as 4068 unit as such total consumed unit comes to 2684 units.
5. In support of his complaint case complainant adduced oral as well as documentary evidence. The Ld. District Consumer Forum meticulously examined and dealt with every documentary evidence. Electricity bill for the month of June, 2018 was Rs. 9,394/- to be paid before 09.07.2018 and thereafter, Rs. 9,680/- was payable.
6. The District Consumer Forum has compared different bills issued by opposite parties and found discrepancies in the electricity bills issued by opposite parties. In electricity bill dated 06.06.2017 meter reading shown is 3706 and consumed units are 40. However, in electricity bill (disputed) dated 24.06.2018 past meter reading on 22.05.2018 shows 1379 units and present meter reading on 24.06.2018 shows 4063 unit as such there is apparent discrepancy in electricity bill with respect to same meter.
7. The District consumer Forum taking the past meter reading to be 3706 and present meter reading 4063 has found units consumed to be 4063-3706=357 units and directed to issue revised electricity bill within 30 days and adjust excess amount paid by complainant in electricity bill and further directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for physical and mental harassment and Rs. 5,000/- as cost of litigation.
8. Aggrieved by which present appeal has been filed by appellants/opposite parties.
9. Appellants have not challenged the findings of District Consumer Forum as far as revision of bill is concerned rather have accepted the order of District Consumer Forum by issuing a revised electricity bill as contained in annexure-3 dated 24.10.2018 in which amount payable is Rs. 1,168/-.
10. In their memo of appeal appellants have accepted their mistake on account of fault of computer and issued fresh electric bill of Rs. 1,168/- whereas disputed bill was Rs. 9394/-.
11.  Grounds no. 2 (IV)  and (IX) reads as follows:

                    “After knowledge regarding error of bill, the bill has been corrected on 08.10.2018 and served to the complainant for payment of Rs. 1,168/- upto October, 2018”.

IX. “Wrong bill was issued due fault of computer”.

12. The only issue raised by counsel for the appellant is that under section 42(5) of the electricity Act, 2003, the consumer grievance Redressal Forum has been constituted to redress the grievance of consumers as such Consumer Forums constituted under consumer protection Act, 1986 have no jurisdiction to entertain complaints with respect to dispute of electricity bills.
13. The issue raised by appellants stands decided by Apex Court and National Commission and one recent judgment of National Commission in case of Radhasoami Satsang Sabha Vs. Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited Since reported in 2022 (1) CPJ(NC) 244, paragraph no. 9 & 10 of which is reproduced below.

9. Rule of exhaustion of alternative remedy is not a rule of law rather a rule of convenience. The Courts exercising extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction can exercise this power. Statutory court/ tribunal cannot invoke this principle. Statutory court/tribunal is required to examine as to whether its jurisdiction is expressly or impliedly barred under any statute. The counsel for the opposite parties did not point out any provision under Electricity Act, 2003 and U.P. Electricity Supply Code, 2005, which bars the jurisdiction of consumer forum. Consumer forum has concurrent jurisdiction. Allahabad High Court dismissed the writ petition, on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. It cannot be treated as a direction to avail a particular remedy alone as mentioned in the order. Supreme Court in Dhannalal Vs. Kalawatibai, (2002) 6 SCC 16, has held that the plaintiff is a dominus litis, that is, master of, or having dominion over the case. In case of conflict of jurisdiction, the choice ought to lie with the plaintiff to choose forum, best suited to him.

                    10. The dispute between the parties is in respect of applicability of tariff category w.e.f. 12.08.2007. U.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission revised the tariff, vide order dated 10.05.2007, w.e.f. 12.08.2007, in which, tariff category LMV-1 (b)- “Supply at single point for bulk load” was changed as “For Township, Registered Society, Residential Colonies, Multi-storied Buildings (including lifts, water pumps and common lighting within the premises) with loads above 50 KW with the condition that 70% of the total contracted load shall be exclusively for the purposes of domestic light, fan and power including the load required for lifts, water pumps and common lighting. In the next revision of tariff, w.e.f. 27.04.2008, this category remained unchanged.

14. The appeal is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed.

(Ram Prawesh Das)                                                                                                            (Sanjay Kumar,J)

       Member                                                                                                                             President

Md. Fariduzzama