The instant case was instituted on the basis of a written complaint file by one Bharat Prasad Keshori S/O. Late Ramachandra Prasad Keshori residing at Binoy Sarkar Road, P.O. & Dist. – Malda, P.S. English Bazar  and the said petition of complaint was treated as Complaint Case No. 07/2018.

The fact of the case as revealed from the petition of complaint as well as from the evidence is that the complainant is the owner of the property as mentioned in the petition of complaint and he built a multi storied building over the property and some portion of the land is stood in the name of his wife Smt. Shakuntala Devi. The complainant consumed electric power since 1984 when the electric connection was supplied by the then West Bengal Electricity Board bearing Meter No. 870520. After computerization of the meter by electric process the meter number was changed to new Computer Meter No. ID No. 342014915. As a bona fide consumer the complainant regularly paid the electric charges for consumption of electricity in proper time. During consuming of electric energy the ACE and S.M. of Fullbari Customer Care Centre of W.B.S.E.D.C.L< Malda lodged a written F.I.R. against the complainant as user before the I.C. E.B.P.S. on 20/11/2017 u/s. 135 (1)(b) /135 (1)(b) /135 i(d) of Electricity Act, 2003 and the service connection was disconnected in the name of Smt. Shakuntala Devi bearing Meter ID No. 342158069. The complainant and Smt. Shakuntala Das are legally married husband and wife and they live in the same building along with their son at the time of disconnection of meter bearing No. 2252216 and ID No. 342158069 and also disconnected Meter, I.D. No. of the complainant 342014915 on the same date. After disconnection the O.Ps sent electric bills for the month of 13/11/2017, 13/12/2017 and 15/01/2018 without taking any reading and the complainant also paid the bills on 15/01/2018. Thereafter, the SAE and ASM of Fullbari Customer Care Centre disconnected electric connection of the complainant without giving any notice of disconnection and on the same day the O.P. also disconnected the service connection of his wife. The complainant is an old man and is about eighty years old and suffering from various diseases. As the O.Ps are harassing the complainant by creating mental pain and agony this is why the complainant has filed a case with a prayer for reconnection of the disconnected electric connection and cost of Rs. 1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh Only) for mental pain and agony.

The petition has been contested by the O.Ps by filing written version by the O.P. No. 3 for himself and on behalf of the other contending inter alia that the instant case is not maintainable in its present form.

The further defense case is that on 03/11/2017 a bill was claimed for consumption of electricity to the extent of 1234 units as such a consumer is bound to pay the bill but the service connection was disconnected after detected theft on 20/11/2017. So there was no intention on the part of the O.P. to issue indefinite electric bill and bind the consumer to pay the bill.  The further defense case is that on inspection the office of the O.P. No.3 found that theft was committed in respect of the both service connection as such the service connection was disconnected in respect of the both service connection. The case was lodged by Case No. 1034/17 dt. 20/11/2017 against the complainant Bharat Prasad Kehori a provisional bill of Rs. 3,77,400/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Seventy Seven Thousand Four Hundred ) was raised on 21/11/2017 against the theft of energy as per electricity bill. The party has paid up the final assessment of Rs.1,55,700/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Five Thousand Seven Hundred Only) on 16/12/2017. Considering such facts and circumstances the instant case is liable to be dismissed.

In order to prove the case the complainant was himself examined as P.W.-1 and he filed the same documents and cross-examined. On the other hand no witness was examined on behalf of the O.P.

Now point of determination:-Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief or not ?

::DECISION WITH REASONS::      

At the time of argument the Ld.Lawyer of the complainant argued that the prayer of the complainant was for reconnection of disconnected electric connection in the name of the complainant. The Ld.Lawyer of the O.P. further argued that in the cross-examination PW-1 has admitted that after payment of money service connection was restored in respect of the two connections. So according to the argument as advanced by the Ld.Lawyer of the O.P. is that as and when the service connection was restored so actually the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as because the complainant prayed for reconnection of  service connection which was disconnected.

On the other hand the Ld.Lawyer of the complainant submits that at the time of filing of this case the service connection was not restored. This is why the complainant filed the case for restoration of electricity and also filed a petition for injunction but due to the prevailing states which was prevailed at the Malda Consumer Forum the Lawyer did not take part in any proceeding and this is why no order was passed as regards to the injunction of petition.

It is a fact that service connection has been reconnected but there is another prayer for compensation for mental pain and agony. According to the argument, that due to the deficiency of service on the part of the employees of the O.Ps the complainant suffered a loss. This is why another prayer may be considered.

In view of the case law reported by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal in its first appeal A907/2017(Divisional Engineer and Divisional Manager South Dinajpur V/S. Smt. Asha Das) the Hon’ble State Commission held that when there was a dispute as regards to the electric bill the consumer will pray to the Regional Grievance Redressal Officer in accordance with the Regulation 3.5.1 of Notification No. 55/WBERC dt. 07/08/2013. According to the Regulation 3.5.1 in case there is any dispute in respect of the bill amount, the consumer may lodge a complaint with the Grievance Redressal Officer or the Central Grievance Redressal Officer of the Licensee and thereafter to the Ombudsman in appeal against the order of the Grievance Redressal Officer or the Central Grievance Redressal Officer, in accordance with the provisions of the concerned Regulations. So, in view of that case law as decided by the Hon’ble State Commission this Forum has got no jurisdiction to decide the matter in question as it relates to the dispute of the bill amount.

The Hon’ble State Commission also expressed the same view in Revision Petition No. RP 102/2018 arising out of the case of Malda District Consumer Forum.

So considering such facts and circumstances it is found that the instant case is not maintainable as such liable to be dismissed.                                              

C.F. Paid is correct.

Hence, ordered that

the case be and the same is dismissed on contest without any cost

Let a copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost on proper application.