The fact of the case as revealed from the petition of complainant as well as from the evidence is that the complainant runs the bittle nut shop for which he took the electric connection from the O.Ps bearing Consumer I.D. No. 34228338, Business Port No. 8006230. It has been further stated that last three months electric bill from the month of November, 2014 to 2015 the complainant has paid the bill. The further case of the complainant is that the quarterly bills were Rs. 1,020/-, Rs. 1,085/-, Rs. 275/-, Rs. 553/-, Rs.844/-, Rs.477/-, Rs. 699/- Rs.216/-, Rs.295/- Rs. 218/-, Rs.430/- Rs.182/- Rs. 431/-, Rs.392/- Rs.719/- Rs. 365/-. But the O.P. sent electric bill of Rs.2,00.000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) from the month November, 2014 to 2015, such amount of bill is completely without any basis and the bill is arbitrarily high.

After receiving the bill the complainant made an application before the Station Manager, Samsi but he did not get any justice from him, rather the Station Manager forced him to pay the amount. It has been further stated that on 23/03/2015 the O.P. took away the electric meter after disconnection of service.  The service connection was in force from 10/10/2009 to 23/03/2015. So during that period the complainant never consumed such amount of electricity. As such the complainant has come to this Forum to redress his grievance.

The petition has been contested by the O.Ps by filing written version denying the entire material allegation as leveled against the O.Ps contending inter alia that the instant case is not maintainable. The case has been filed with an ulterior motive.

The definite defense case is that accumulated consumption of 213839 units found up to 27/02/2015 for the commercial connection of the complainant and the bill amount was Rs.2,55,365/- (Two Lakhs Fifty Five Thousand Three Hundred Sixty Five Only). The petitioner never paid the said bill but submitted a prayer for correction of the bill and requested to install a check meter. Thereafter on the basis of such application filed by the complainant the O.Ps installed the check meter No. G1164511 at the premises as Check Meter but subsequently the complainant intentionally and willfully kept the meter room in locked condition. But on 10.09.2015 the O.Ps were not able to read out the meter reading of the Check Meter. The meter reading of the previous meter and the check meter are almost same. On 10.09.2015 I it has come to the knowledge of the O.Ps that the complainant is not only consuming electricity for his commercial purpose but also supplying electricity to the other adjoining person in lieu of money. For this reason an FIR was lodged at the Pukuria P.S. bearing No. 411/15 dt. 10/09/2015. So considering such facts and circumstances, the instant case is liable to be dismissed on cost.

In order to prove the case the complainant himself was examined as P.W.-1 and cross-examined by the O.Ps. Another witness Mozaher Hossain was examined as P.W.-2 and cross-examined. During trial the complainant has proved and marked the document from Ext.-1 to Ext.- 18. On the other hand Shakti Kumar Singh was examined as O.P.W.-1  and cross-examined. No other witness was examined on behalf of the O.Ps.                         

Now the point for consideration.

Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for?

::DECISION WITH REASONS::

At the time of argument the Ld.Lawyer of the complainant argued that the complainant is running a small bittle nut shop for which there cannot be consumption of electricity like the amount of two lakhs. It is very absurd so the bill raised by the O.Ps is arbitrary and without any basis. So the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for.

On the other hand the Ld.Lawyer of O.P. submitted that the complainant did not pay the electric bill after consumption of electricity for a long time. This is why accumulated units was recollected in the meter reading. As per meter reading the amount was claimed. So the bill is not arbitrary. The further case of the O.P. is that the complainant is not using electricity to his own shop but he distributed electricity to the adjoining shop owner from his service connection as such the amount was high for which a written complainant was lodged before the Pukuria P.S. The Ld.Lawyer of the O.P. submitted that there was no defect of the meter as the meter reading of the previous meter and the meter reading in the check meter was almost found same.

It is well settled principle of law that the consumer has a liability to make the payment for consumption of electricity. Moreover, on perusal of the record as well as from the evidence of complainant it is found that the service connection was disconnected on 23/03/2015. The O.Ps disconnected the service connection due to non-payment of electric charges consumed by him. In view of the case law decided by that State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Forum in Divisional Engineer & Divisional Manager, WBSEDCL, Dakshin Dinajpur Vs. Smt. Asha Das it was held that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2013) 8 SCC 491[ U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Anis Ahmed], Hon’ble State Commission of West Bengal held that the Electricity Act and the Consumer Protection Act, runs parallel for giving redressal to any person who falls within the meaning of ‘Consumer’ as defined in Sec. 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.  

The Hon’ble State Commission further held that in case of any dispute in respect to the billed amount, the consumer may lodge a complaint with the Grievance Redressal Officer. The Regional Grievance Redressal Officer was appointed in accordance with Regulation 3.5.1 of the Notification No.5 of W.B.E.R.C. dt. 07/08/2013. So considering the facts and circumstances the instant case is not maintainable.

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 order be given to the parties free of cost on proper application.