The instant case was started on the basis of a petition of complaint filed by one Nirendranath Sarkar,Age 35 years, S/o. Late Madan Mohon Sarkar, Vill- Rabindropolly, P.O. & P.S. Gazole, Dist. – Malda Pin Code 732 124.  u/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the same petition was registered as Consumer Case No. 37/2019.

The fact of the case as revealed from the petition of complaint as well as from the evidence is that the complainant took electric connection for installation of submersible pump for the purpose of irrigation in respect of the land as mentioned in the schedule of land as well as in the petition of complaint.

The complainant applied for electric connection to the Station Manager, Gazole Customer Care Centre and within seven days from the date of application the Station Manager directed to deposit Rs. 31,577/- (Rupees Thirty One Thousand Five Hundred Seventy Seven Only) and for transformer the complainant deposited total amount of Rs. 1,90,408/- (Rupees One Lakh Ninety Thousand Four Hundred Eight Only). It has been further stated in the petition of complaint as well as from the evidence is that the seasonal business for the month of December to Januarynear about 20/25 days. The complainant operated the pump for which the monthly bill used to come Rs. 11,000/- to Rs. 12,000/-. During the  non-seasonal period the bill used to come Rs. 300/- to Rs. 400/- p.m. But all on a sudden the electric meter was stopped for which the complainant informed to the Station Managerfrom the month of January, 2016 the meter is in stopped condition. In spite of that the bill has been sent showing the meter reading and a bill of Rs.1,91,142/- (Rupees One Lakh Ninety One Thousand One Hundred Forty Two Only) has been received by the complainant. The complainant has prayed for fresh Bill (Mukta Bill) as stated in the petition of complaint and the complainant is ready to pay the amount as mentioned in the fresh bill (Mukta Bill).

The petition has been contested by the O.Ps by filing the written version denying all the material allegations as leveled against the O.P.contending inter alia that the case is not maintainable in its present form. The case is barred by the principle of non-joinder of necessary parties. The case is also barred by the principle of waiver, estoppels and acquiescence and the complaint is also barred by law of limitation.

The definite defense case is that the service meter of the complainant was found defective during the meter reading in the month of April, 2019 and the estimated bill was generated as per W.B.S.E.D.C.L. regulation. Thereafter, on 17/12/2019 an open inspection was held in presence of the complainant and found that the transformer of the service connection was found defective. The O.P. is entitled to get Rs.1,39,096/-(Rupees One Lakh Thirty Nine Thousand Ninety Six Only) from the complainant as outstanding dues till 11/09/2019.

The complainant is a defaulter and the O.P. is always ready to reconnect and replace the meter to the complainant if the complainant pays the outstanding dues. So 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 PW-1 and cross-examined and no other witness was examined on behalf of the O.P. On the other hand no witness was examined on behalf of the O.P.

Now the point for consideration:- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for?

::DECISION WITH REASONS::

The Ld.Lawyer of the complainant argued that in the year 2016 the meter was stopped and such fact of stopping meter was informed to the O.P. but the O.P. did not take any action. No document has been filed that the complainant informed to the O.P. that the meter was stopped though the complainant several times requested the O.P. for correction of the electric bills. On the other hand the Ld.Lawyer of the O.P. submitted that from April, 2019 the meter was found defective. There after the bill was generated as per reading. But the complainant did not pay the outstanding dues this is why his service connection was disconnected.

It is the well settled principle of Law that a bonafide ‘Consumer’ has a liability to pay the electric bill for the consumption of electricity but on perusal of the record it is found that the complainant did not file any document to show that he paid the bill.

Moreover, in view of the pleadings it is found that there is a dispute as regards to the unit of consumption of electricity. 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, West Bengal 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 judgment be given to the Complainant/O.P. free of cost on proper application.