Sri Ashoke Kumar Pal, President.
The case of the complainant in short is that the complainant is a consumer of W.B.S.E.D.C.L under Laxmikantapur Customer Care Centre, Laxmikantapur, Bijoygunge, Pin – 743336, South 24 Parganas being Consumer ID No. 101503050, Meter No. – BR153599. On 31.07.2019 the complainant received electric bill mentioning that electric meter of the complainant was not working. On 02.08.2019 the complainant visited the office of the O.P. and lodged a complaint in this regard requesting them to change the defective electric meter of the complainant. Thereafter, on 31.10.2019 the complainant received the electric bill of Rs. 4,520/- which is vague, arbitrary and very high for the complainant’s residential house. The elder brother of the complainant visited the office of the O.P. and on being asked he was told that on the earlier year i.e. 2018 the same bill has been generated and on the basis of the same the instant bill was generated. But actually the bill for the year 2018 was infact less than the year 2019. On 03.11.2019 the complaint was lodged being complaint No. 27002363 and a separate complaint was also lodged for the defective meter being complaint No. 26955350. After 4 days of making such complaint the meter was changed by the O.P. But the situation remained same regarding the unreasonable amount of electric bill. On 14.11.2019 the complainant visited the office of the O.P. to submit a written complaint which the office of the O.P. refused to accept. Thereafter, on 15.11.2019 the complainant sent a written complaint by registered speed post which was received by the Office of the O.P. on 19.11.2019. But ultimately no fruitful result was achieved and hence, this case on the reliefs sought for in the petition of complaint.
The O.P. contested the case by filing W.V. contending inter-alia that the claims of the complainant are all false and are not maintainable. It is the specific case of the O.P. that the electric meter of the complainant was defective for the middle of 2019 for which for the bill period of November, 2019 to January, 2020 was generated as per regulation of W.B.C.R.C. The bill period of August, 2019 to October, 2019 (reading period) was generated for only 45 unit as per previous year mentioned. It was contended by the O.P. that the said defective meter was replaced on 04.11.2019. Even after the replacement of the defective meter, the O.P. did not pay the electric bill. It was further contended that the instant complaint case has been filed in respect of a dispute relating to electric bill and as such as per Regulation No. 3.5 of Notification No. 55/W.B.E.R.C. dated 07.08.2013 the complainants are required to lodge a complaint before the Grievance Redressal Office (G.R.O.) or Central Grievance Redressal Office (C.G.R.O.) and thereafter before the Ombudsman in appeal, if necessary, so the instant case is not maintainable before this Commission and is liable to be dismissed in limini. The O.Ps. also denied the other material averments of the petition of complaint para wise and prayed for dismissal of the case.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION :
- Is the instant complaint case maintainable before the Commission?
- Is the complainant a consumer?
- Is the O.P. guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice?
- Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for?
DECISIONS WITH REASONS :
Point No. 1:
It is the specific case of the O.P. (W.B.S.E.D.C.L.) that the instant case is not maintainable before the Commission as the dispute between the parties is a billing dispute pure and simple. In this connection, Ld. Advocate for the O.P. referred Regulation No. 3.5 of Notification No. 55/W.B.E.R.C. dated 07.08.2013 which provides as follows:
“3.5.1 (a) – In case, there is dispute in respect of the billed 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. In such a case, the aggrieved consumer, pending disposal of the dispute, may, under protest, pay the lesser amount out of the following two options:-
- an amount equal to the sum claimed from him in the disputed bill, or
- an amount equal to the electricity charges due from him for each month calculated on the basis of average charge of electricity paid by him during the preceeding six months, the amount so calculated provisionally as per clause (ii) above by the licensee and tendered by the consumer shall be accepted by the licensee against that bill on provisional basis.”
The provisions of Regulation 3.5.2 reads as under :-
“3.5.2 – If any aggrieved consumer makes a provisional payment, as aforesaid, no penal measure including disconnection for non-payment shall be taken against him till the dispute is settled either at the level of the Grievance Redressal Officer or the Central Grievance Redressal Officer or the Ombudsman, as the case may be. However, imposition of a delayed payment, surcharge, if applicable shall not count towards a penal measure for this purpose.”
Here in this case admittedly the complainant did not pay the amount of the bill issued by the licensing authority. On the contrary, the O.P. has replaced the defective meter by a new one and a revised electricity bill was sent with request to pay the same. But the complainant did not pay the said electricity bill but continued to enjoy the electricity merrily without paying for the consumption of electricity. The complainant did not take the pain of approaching before the Grievance Redressal Officer or the Central Grievance Redressal Officer or Ombudsman for redressal of his billing dispute. The complainant proceeded in a wrong way to decide the dispute without approaching the appropriate authority in accordance with Notification No. 55/W.B.E.R.C dated 07.08.2013. Therefore, we are of the firm opinion that the instant case is not maintainable before this commission.
Thus, the Point No. 1 is decided in favour of the O.P. and against the complainant.
Point Nos. 2, 3 & 4:
In respect of these three points we are of the view that when the instant case is not at all maintainable before the Commission as discussed herein before in Point No.1, there is no necessity to enter into the merit of the case as per Point Nos. 2, 3 and 4.
In the result, the complaint case fails.
Court fees paid is correct.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
That the instant Complaint case be and the same is dismissed on contest. Parties will bear their respective cost.
The Complainant is hereby given liberty to approach the appropriate Forum in accordance with Notification No. 55/W.B.E.R.C dated 07.08.2013, if necessary.
Let a copy of the order be sent / supplied free of cost to the parties concerned.
The Final Order will be available in the following website www.confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me.
President
