Presented by Sri G.S. Pradhan, President . <br /> The case pertains to deficiency in service as envisaged under the provision of Consumer Protection Act-1986, and its brief fact is as follows:-<br /> <br /> The Complainant is a bonafide consumer of Opposite Parties since from Dt.20/08/1977 and paying the bill to the Opposite Parties regularly. In the year 1990, the Opposite Parties converted the domestic connection of the Complainant to commercial purpose. The Complainant made complained to the O.S.E.B, Barpali at Sohella Camp and on received of the complain again they converted it to domestic connection fixing the slab of Rs.40/- (Rupees forty)only per months. The Opposite Parties had illegally shown an arrear of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand)only though he had paid the full amount up to December 1991. When the Complainant wanted to pay the monthly bills, the Opposite Parties gave the condition that, the Complainant has clear the arrear i.e Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand) only first, than they received the monthly bills. The Complainant alleges that, the Opposite Parties threatens for disconnection of the line and collects Rs.500/-(Rupees five hundred) only in every two months. The Opposite Parties did not take any meter reading for about three years and demanded the bill amount at a higher slab, which was paid by the Complainant. The Opposite Parties demanded Rs. 12,000/-(Rupees twelve thousand)only in one month with additional of arrear bill, which is illegal.<br /> <br /> The Complainant lodge complain against the entire arrear bills but the Opposite Parties ignored the arrear bills of O.S.E.B. period which will near about Rs.19,000/-(Rupees nineteen thousand)only with a plea that they have no records with them. Several complaint were made by the Complainant, for consideration of the bill but the Opposite Parties did not care to take any steps in the matter and ultimately threatens for disconnection of the line from the house of the Complainant. Such act of the Opposite Parties are amounts to deficiency in service towards the Complainant.<br /> <br /> The Complainant claims for a direction to the Opposite Parties not to disconnect the electricity till the disposal of this case and to pay compensation for mental agony suffered by the Complainant and ligation cost as per law. <br /> <br /> On being noticed, the Opposite Parties appeared and filed their joint version. In their version, the Opposite Parties denied to have cause any deficiency in service towards the Complainant and also denied all others allegations made by the Complainant. The Opposite Parties contend that, the electric bill was revised and excess bill of Rs.12,425.35/-(Rupees twelve thousand four hundred twenty four and thirty five paise)only was with drawn on the basis of complaint received on December-2006 which was accepted by the Complainant and he has not knocked the door of Higher Forum nor has specifically averted those fact in this present petition. The Complainant is availing the connection for commercial purpose and he has never propose for change of tariff from domestic to commercial purpose.<br /> <br /> Further the Opposite Parties contend that, when the arrear of payment exceeds the security deposit, a disconnection notice is served along with the monthly bill. So serving a disconnection notice to the Complainant is a legal provision and is not a deficiency in service by the Opposite Parties. The dispute regarding bill comes within the purview of Chief Electrical Inspector.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Parties challenges the maintainability of this case on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Parties prays for dismissal of the case with cost.<br /> <br /> Perused the complainant petition. Opposite Parties's version and the copy of documents filed by the Parties in respective of their case and find as follows:-<br /> <br /> The Complainant is a consumer of Opposite Parties is not disputed. The Complainant alleges that the Opposite Parties did not take any meter reading for about three years and the Complainant was paying the bill as higher slab. After three years the Opposite Parties charges Rs.12,000/-(Rupees twelve thousand)only in one month with addition of the arrear bill. The Complainant made complain against the entire bills i.e. Rs.19,000/-(Rupees nineteen thousand)only but the Opposite Parties ignored the arrear bills of O.S.E.B period. On several complaint by the Complainant, the Opposite Parties did not take any action for consideration of the bill but they send disconnection notice to disconnect the line to the house of the Complainant.<br /> <br /> In reveals from the pleadings of the Parties that, the dispute between the Parties for not consideration of the bill for near about a sum of Rs.19,000/-(Rupees nineteen thousand)only which is charged at higher slab and for notice of disconnection to the house of the Complainant. The Opposite Parties contend that the E.C. bill was revised and excess bill of Rs. 12,425.35/-(Rupees twelve thousand four hundred twenty four and thirty five paise)only was withdraw on the basis of consumer complaint on December-2006 which is reflected on bill of 2007. The revision bill was accepted by the Complainant with out any objection. The Complainant would have preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority i.e. Chief Electrical Inspector, if he is not satisfied with the revised bill. The Opposite Parties contends that any dispute arise relating to any excessive bill issued by the Opposite Parties, than the matter shall be agitate in the Forum instituted under the provision of O.E.R.C. Code-2004. Undisputedly, the present dispute between the parties for non-rectification of the excessive bill. As per the code, the Complainant would have approached the Consumer Redressal Forum of the WESCO Company established under the Act. But the Complainant has not made any approach against the said excessive bill with the Opposite Parties's authority. Since there is an alternative remedy by way of Appeal to its designated authority under the Electricity Act is available to its consumer like this Complainant for reconsideration of the excessive bill amount, the present proceeding is not maintainable. The Opposite Parties relied on a ruling reported in 2003 (1) C.P.R. Page 307 which supports the case of the Opposite Parties.<br /> <br /> Consequently, the complaint is dismissed.<br /> <br /> Complaint disposed of accordingly.<br /> No cost/compensation.<br />