The instant appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) is at the behest of Opposite Party to impeach the final order/judgment dated 12.10.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hooghly at Chinsurah (in short, ‘Ld. District Forum’) in Consumer Complaint No. 216 of 2015. By the impugned order, the Ld. District Forum allowed the complaint lodged by respondent Tanuja Bibi under Section 12 of the Act with certain directions upon the respondent/appellant like – (1) to prepare a new bill at the rate of consumption 1.5 unit per day from the date of installation till the date; (2) to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- for harassment and mental agony and (3) Rs.10,000/- towards litigation cost.

          The respondent herein being complainant lodged the complaint before the Ld. District Forum asserting that her husband Altaf Hossain is a ‘consumer’ being service connection no.1002134167, Consumer Sl. No.101819253 and Meter No.L1851711 and the service connection was effected on 28.08.2014 under Pandua Customer Care Centre, West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (WBSEDCL), Hooghly.  The complainant has stated that the OP was under obligation to raise energy bill on quarterly basis but no bill was raised for considerable period for which on several occasions, verbal requests by the complainant went in vain.  Ultimately, on 05.07.2015 OP raised a bill for Rs.39,538/- for 5130 units showing consumption period from 28.08.2014 to 05.07.2015.  The said energy bill has been raised against August, 2105, September, 2015 and October 2015 in place of quarter ended in November-2014, February-2015, May-2015 and August- 2015.  According to the complainant, the electric bills issued by the WBSEDCL was excessive and exorbitant.  Hence, the respondent approached the Ld. District Forum with prayer for a direction upon the licensing authority for raising a new energy bill against the impugned bill of 5130 units as on 05.07.2015 on the basis of six months average consumption, Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost.

          The Appellant being Opposite Party by filing a written version has stated that the existing meter seems to be correct and the amount raised in the bill was also correct.  However, they advised the consumer to pay the bill amount in instalment but the complainant did nothing and the electric line still exists and the outstanding dues is Rs.42,013.88P is pending.

          After assessing the materials on record, the Ld. District Forum by the impugned order allowed the complaint with the directions as indicated above. To assail the said order, the opposite party has come up in this Commission with the present appeal.

          Mr. Suvendu Das, Ld. Advocate for the appellant has submitted that the dispute was essentially a billing dispute and in accordance with the Notification No. 55/W.B.E.R.C dated 7^th August, 2013 the Ld. District Forum should not have entertained the complaint as there was specific provision to ventilate the grievances before the Regional Grievances Redressal Officer or Central Grievances Redressal Officer or to an Ombudsman, as the case may be and as the Ld. District Forum has proceeded in a wrong way to decide the instant dispute, the impugned order should be set aside.

          Per contra, Mr. Golak Chandra Ghosh, Ld. Advocate for the respondent supporting the decision of the Ld. District Forum has contended that when the appellant/opposite party has not raised the energy bill in each interval of three months, certainly the WBSEDCL was deficient in rendering services in accordance with Section 2(1)(g) read with Section 2(1)(o) of the Act and as such the impugned order should not be interfered with.

          I have scrutinised the materials on record and considered the submission advanced by the Ld. Advocates appearing for the respective parties.

     Undisputedly, respondent’s husband Altaf Hossain is a resident of Neyala Aymapara, P.O. + P.S.- Pandua, Dist- Hooghly is a ‘consumer’ of W.B.S.E.D.C.L. being Service Connection No.1002134167, Consumer Sl. No.101819253 and Meter No.L1851711 and the Service Connection was effected on 28.08.2014 under Pandua Customer Care Centre, West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (WBSEDCL), Hooghly. On 05.07.2015 a bill generated by the licensing authority was served upon the respondent where an amount of Rs. 39,538/- was claimed for 5130 units for consumption period between 28.08.2014 and 05.07.2015. Evidently, the respondent raised objection against such bill.  Accordingly, a meter was installed in series with the existing meter having Meter No.1851711 from 12.09.2015 with initial reading are 1871 (series meter) and 5289 (existing meter).  On 26.09.2015 the reading found 1893 in series meter and 5311 in challenge meter from 12.09.2015 to 26.09.2015 and it was found that both the meters consumed 22 units each.

          However, due to shortage of staff, the WBSEDCL could not raise the bill after interval of every three months and in this regard, they are ready to allow the consumer to pay the bill by way of instalments but the husband of the respondent/complainant did not resort to the same.

          The pleading of the parties and the materials on record clearly manifest that the dispute is apparently a billing dispute. For appreciation of the situation, it would be worthwhile to refer Clause 3.5 of Notification No. 55 of West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission published in Kolkata Gazette (Extra-Ordinary) dated 7^th August, 2013 appears to be relevant which provides:

        “3.5.1(a) – In case, there is any dispute in respect of the billed amount, the consumer may lodged 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: -

1. an amount equal to the sum claimed from him in the disputed bill, or
2. 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 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 agreed 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”.

          The aforesaid provisions of Clause 3.5 of Notification No. 55/W.B.E.R.C. dated 7^th August, 2013 flows from the Electricity Act, 2003 and as such it has a statutory force. Needless to say, if the law prescribes to do certain thing in a particular way or in a particular manner, it should be done with the intention of legislature and a Court/Forum has no authority to bypass such legislative command. The appellant/OP has categorically stated that the consumption unit appears in the meter is correct and there is no defect in the meter stands in the name of husband of respondent/complainant.  Therefore, when after replacing another meter it was found that the disputed meter was in good running condition, the only option left for the respondent/complainant was to approach to the RGRO or CGRO or Ombudsman, as the case may be for ventilating of their grievances, if any.

         I am not unmindful to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2013) 8 SCC 491 [U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. –Vs. – Anis Ahmed] that the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 runs parallel for giving redressal to any person, who falls within the meaning of ‘consumer’ as defined in Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act but it is limited to the dispute relating to ‘unfair trade practice’ or a ‘restrictive trade practice’ adopted by the service provider or if the ‘consumer’ suffers from deficiency in service or hazardous service or the service provider has charged a price in excess of the price fixed by or under any law.

        However, 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 or documentary evidence without evidence of an expert in the field.  In the prayer clause of the petition of complaint, respondent did not make any prayer for appointment of any technical person to ascertain 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 W.B.S.E.D.C.L for which an inflated bill had been raised. Therefore, in order to contradict the assessment of the licensing authority, the respondent should have invoked Clause 3.5 by lodging a complaint before the appropriate authority. Therefore, the Ld. District Forum had no reason to pass any order by ignoring the report of licensing authority.

          Accordingly, the impugned order being not in conformity with the provisions of law it is liable to be set aside.

         For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is allowed on contest. Considering the facts and circumstance, however, there will be no order as to costs.

          Consequently, the CC/216/2015 stands dismissed.

          The Registrar of the Commission is directed to send a copy of the order to the concerned Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hooghly at Chinsurah for information.