C.F. CASE No.                      :            CC/2013/90

COMPLAINANT                   :          Minu Saha,

                                                W/o Late Biswanath Saha,

                                                K.N. Dakshi Road, Malopara,

                                                P.O. Krishnagar, P.S. Kotwali,

Dist. Nadia, PIN - 741101

• Vs  –

OPPOSITE PARTIES/OPs   1)         Station Manager / Superintendent,

                                                                                Krishnagar Town Electric Supply,

                                                                                Power House, D.L. Roy Road,

                                                                                P.S. Kotwali, P.O. Krishnagar, Dist. Nadia

                                                                                PIN – 741101

                                                              2)             Divisional Engineer,

                                                                                W.B.S.E.D.C.L., Krishnagar Road Station,

                                                                                P.S. Kotwali, P.O. Krishnagar,

                                                Dist. Nadia, PIN – 741101

PRESENT                : SHRI PRADIP KUMAR BANDYOPADHYAY, PRESIDENT

   : SMT REETA ROYCHAUDHURY MALAKAR, MEMBER

                 : SHRI SHYAMAL KUMAR GHOSH, MEMBER

DATE OF DELIVERY                                             

OF  JUDGMENT                         :   16^th January, 2015

:    J U D G M E N T    :

The brief fact of the case is that the consumer / complainant was the subscriber of electric service connection bearing No. – D1001.  He also became a holder of meter No. – 750136364.  The consumption of electricity was not more than 40 units. The complainant received the electricity bill for the month of August, September and October 2013 for the amount of Rs. 2589-50, Rs. 2589-50 and Rs. 2589.50 respectively. The complainant was very much surprised after perusing the said bill dated 12/08/2013.   The said matter has been intimated forthwith to the OP  No. 1 vide letter dated 17/08/2013. The electric consumption cannot be more than 129 units in 3 months.   The complainant used to reside with her son viz, Anirban Saha and due to some family dispute between mother and son, the son separated from his mother since January 2013.  He took separate meter vide No. – P1912830.   Naturally the electric consumption should be reduced from January, 2013.  So bill for the month of August, September and October, 2013 was fictitious, illegal and baseless.  The opposite parties had no right to send this type of fictitious/illegal bill and the OPs had caused continuous threatening to disconnect the service connection by virtue of illegal bill. The complainant was suffering from financial losses as well as physical and mental harassment.  There is a gross negligence on the part of OPs.  Hence the case with the prayers mentioned in the relevant portion of the complaint.

The OPs contested this case by filing written version stating, inter alia, that the bill received by the complainant / consumer for the month of August, 2013 to October, 2013 was prepared on average basis as the meter was defective one.  The unit has been claimed as per norms and guidelines of the Regulation 36 of sub-section 3.6.  The said claim was proper and justified. Regarding this matter physical verification and inspection was made on 20/08/2013 and on inspection it was found that the meter was defective one.  The new meter was replaced in its place on 08/09/2013.  There is no fault and gross negligence on the part of OPs, so the petition is liable to be rejected with cost.

We have perused complaint, written version, evidence, written arguments along with all material documents submitted by both parties. 

Now this Forum is to consider the following points :-

1. Whether the complainant is to be treated as consumer as per C.P. Act, 1986.
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for or not.
3. Whether there is any gross negligence or deficiency in service on the part of OPs or not.

DECISION WITH REASONS

Point No. 1

It appears from the electric bills and it is also admitted position that the complainant is a consumer under the West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd (W.B.S.E.D.C.L.) and as per consumption of electricity the complainant paid the consideration money to the OPs.  So as per provision of law, the complainant is to be treated as a consumer.  Thus the point No. 1 is decided as per above observations.

Point Nos. 2 & 3

At first, it is the main issue /point which have to be decided  that whether the Consumer Forum is entitled to settle up the disputes between the parties in case of disputed electric bill or not.  In CESC – Vs – Shri N. M. Banka and others (civil appeal No. 14421 of 1996) held that in case of dispute or difference about the correctness of the meter or the correctness of the bill, the consumer may apply to the electrical inspector. The writ petitioner did not avail of the statutory remedy provided by Sec – 26 (4) and 26(6) but approached the court for interim relief and by these process managed to get supply of electricity though there was huge outstanding default.  It was not proper for the court to direct CESC to supply electricity to a defaulter indefinitely by interim orders. Specific statutory remedy provided by the Indian Electricity Act to the consumer should not have been allowed to be bypassed.  If the consumer was aggrieved by the bills, he should have approached the electrical inspector straightway. When the consumer approached the court, the court should have declined to intervene in the matter and should have directed the consumer to avail of the statutory remedy.  In any event, under the writ jurisdiction, the court could not have decided about the correctness or otherwise of the bills.

In W.B.S.E.D.C.L. – Vs – Gurupada Mazumder S.C case no FA/365 of 2009 decided on 12/2/2010 (1V 2010 CPJ 49), wherein the Hon’ble West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata held that it would be just and proper to refer the billing dispute in question to an appropriate grievance redressal machinery as provided under Provision 3.5 of the WBERC Regulation No. 13 dated 5/2/2004.   We have also perused the notification no 36/WBERC dated 12/09/2007 of West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission, wherein 3.5.1 (a) in case there is any dispute in respect of the billed amount, the consumer may lodge a complaint with the Grievance Redressal Officer of the licensee and thereafter to the Ombudsman in appeal against the order of the Grievance Redressal Officer, in accordance with the provisions of the concerned Regulations.

In the instant case the OP has charged 1069 units instead of 129 units.   So from the four corners of the record it is fact that the instant case is purely related with the matter of disputed electric bill.

Under the above facts and circumstances, as per above observations and case laws discussed above we have come to conclusion that the present Forum has no power to make any correction of the disputed electric bill.  In the said case it is duty of the consumer / complainant to move before the appropriate authority / Grievance Redressal Officer for getting his/her relief.  The complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for and it is our view that there is no negligence or fault on the part of the OPs.

The point Nos. 2 and 3 are thus decided.  So the case fails.

Hence,

ORDERED,

That the case CC/2013/90 be and same is dismissed on contest against the OPs without cost.

Let the copy of order be supplied to the parties free of cost.