Ld. Advocate for the complainant is present.
Today is fixed for admission hearing.
Perused the complaint petition and the Xerox copies of the documents.
Ld. Agent for the complainant submits that the complainant received a inflated bill on 14.02.2018 amounting Rs.2, 33.105.32 which is without any basis of any meter reading.
It is argued that the OP, without any intimation to the complainant, disconnected the meter of the complainant on 31.03.18. It is further argued that the OP has deficiency in service and the complainant should be compensated for harassment, as there is a consumer dispute between the complainant and the OP.
We have gone through the materials on record and considered the submission of the Ld. Agent for the complainant.
We have also gone through the judgment passed by the Hon’ble State Commission in FA No. A 1087 of 2017 dt. 01.06.2018 communicated vide memo No. 874/SC/2J-08/14 dt. 0506.2018 wherein it has been held that in case there is any dispute in respect of 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 preceding six months.
The amount so calculated provisionally as per Cl.(ii) above by the licensee and tendered by the consumer shall be accepted by the licensee against that bill on provisional basis.”
It has also been held that there is no machinery before the Forum constituted under the Act to ascertain as to whether the meter, in question, was defective or not. Such a dispute cannot be adjudicated basing upon oral and documentary evidence without evidence of an expert in the field. In the prayer clause of the petition of complaint, the respondent did not make any prayer for appointment of any technical expert to asc3ertain the correctness of the meter in question. There is no evidence whatsoever to indicate that the respondent has any hostile animus or animosity with any employee/staff of WBSEDCL for which an inflated bill has been raised. Therefore, in order to contradict the assessment of the licensing authority, the respondent should have invoked Cl.3.5 by lodging a complaint before the appropriate authority.”
In the present case, the complainant has disputed about the billing in connection with Consumer I.D. No. 301291272.
With due regard to the decision of the Hon’ble State Commission as noted above, we think that the present complaint is notmaintainable as the dispute is apparently a billing dispute.
So, we find no reason to admit the complaint.
Hence, the complaint be dismissed.
