Hon'ble Mr. Sudip Niyogi, President
This complaint u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been lodged by the Complainant against the OP. In brief, the case of the Complainant is that he is a consumer of the domestic electric connection within the district of Cooch Behar having Consumer ID No.424182636 and he paid the electricity bill regularly. But the Complainant had to go out of Cooch Behar for business purpose in the year 2012 and he could not make payment of the last electric bill and became defaulter. On 07.02.13, the OP disconnected electric connection of the resident of the Complainant.
It is alleged by the Complainant that after returning to his residence in January, 2018, Complainant approached the OP on 16.01.18 for restoration of electric line. On being satisfied, the OP restored the electric connection on getting payment of due electric bills upto 18.04.17. However, on 25.05.18, the OP sent another bill for Rs.10,720/- to the Complainant for payment. In addition to Minimum charge and the energy charge, Rs.8989.63 was charged under the head LPSC charge. On being aggrieved about the huge amount of the bill, Complainant requested the OP to furnish detailed account and reasons for inflated bill but they denied to do so. Ultimately, on 12.07.18, the Complainant submitted an application to the OP in writing to get total account statement but in vain. Thus, the Complainant having aggrieved, approached this Forum seeking several reliefs.
The OP contested this case by filing their written version, evidence on affidavit and written argument. The OP denied the allegation levelled against them. According to the OP, after the reconnection of electric line to the residence of the Complainant, a bill for the months of February to April, 2018 was claimed for 50 Units after taking the Meter reading on 19.02.18. In this bill, Op claimed Rs.10,302/- from the Complainant. A sum of Rs.8989.63 was claimed as LPSC (late payment surcharge) as per WBERC guideline. On receipt of the said bill, Complainant visited the Office of the OP and the OP explained him thoroughly about the LPSC i.e. late payment surcharge. According to OP, no misdeed was done in respect of electric bill of the Complainant. So, the OP prayed for dismissal of the instant complaint.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the Complainant a Consumer as per provision under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?
- Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops as alleged by the Complainant?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get any relief/reliefs, as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point No.1 and 2.
The Complainant submitted that he is a customer of the OP and he used to make payment of electric bills regularly on receipt of bill from them.
The Complainant submitted that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and the claimed amount is also within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum. On a careful consideration over the matter, we are of the view that this Forum has both territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
Point No.3 and 4.
On going through the materials on record and contentions of the parties, it is found that the Complainant raised dispute regarding the amount charged as LPSC, which is amounted to Rs.8989.63 in the bill for the month of February, 2010. During argument, Ld. Advocate appeared for the Complainant submitted that the OP charged about Rs.2,000/- extra amount towards LPSC. On the other hand, Ld. Advocate appeared for the OP submitted that LPSC charges are calculated in accordance with the percentage which is mentioned on reverse page of the bill issued by WBSEDCL under “Delayed Payment Surcharge”. In fact, no calculation of the charges has been filed on behalf of the Complainant, who allegedly stated that extra charges have been included. This apart, Ld. Advocate appeared for the OP submitted that the present case being related to bill dispute, the complaint of petition cannot be entertained in this Forum.
In support of the said contention on behalf of the OP, one decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India- M/s Rajkumar Dyeing & Printing Works –vs- N.M. Banka and another decision of Hon’ble State Commission, West Bengal have been cited. In the said decision, Hon’ble Supreme Court observed:
“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.”
Similar view was also taken by Hon’ble State Commission, West Bengal.
From the Notification No.55 of West Bengal Electricity Commission produced on behalf of OP, it is found that in Point No.3.5.1, it has been provided that-
“In case there is any 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, if the consumer is aggrieved by 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 for electricity paid by him during the preceding 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.”
From the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that, for the settlement of dispute regarding bill amount, statutory mechanism has been there. But, Complainant did not prefer to lodge complaint with the Grievance Redressal Officer of the OP for settlement of his dispute.
Now, following the decisions referred to by the Complainant and following the statutory provision, we are of the view that the Complainant should have approached or ought to have approached the proper forum for his redressal. That being so, we hold that the instant complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Hence, for ends of justice; it is
Ordered
That the instant case be and the same is dismissed on contest. No order as to cost.
Let plain copy of this Order be supplied to the parties concerned by hand/by Post forthwith, free of cost for information & necessary action, if any. The copy of the Final Order also available in the official website: Dictated & corrected by me.
