JUDGMENT

The instant case was started on the basis of a petition of complaint filed by one Sri Dipankar Bhattacharya, Age 47 years, S/o. Late Sankar Chandra Bhattacharya, R/O. Bardan Apartment, Rabindra Avenue, P.S. English Bazar P.S. English Bazar, P.O. & Dist. – Malda u/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the same petition was registered as Consumer Case No. 32/2017.

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 by installing a meter in his residence at the above address from O.P. No.2 bearing Consumer No. 342124482 and is a regular bill payer who got lastly corrected bill for the month of November, December, 2016 and January, 2017 of Rs. 1585/- (Rupees One Thousand Five Hundred Eighty Five Only) and also pad the bill within first due date on 20/11/2016 but the complainant on 25/02/2017 suddenly got a bill of Rs. 93,238/-(Rupees Ninety three Thousand Two Hundred Thirty Eight Only) as a ghostly and unexpected bill dt. February, 2017 to April, 2017 and another bill which the complainant has not yet been received i.e. bills from May, 2017 to July,2017 amounting to Rs. 84,375/- (Rupees Eighty Four Thousand Three Hundred Seventy Five Only) for which the complainant raised vehement objection vide Letter dt.04/03/2017 and also for fear of disconnection he has also paid Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) initially. The O.P. neither maintain any yellow card for the meter reading nor rectify the bills as mentioned above and lastly the complainant finding no other alternatives filed a case before this Forum and also urge to the O.P. that he should not pay any amount of the bills from February, 2017 to July, 2017 unless and until his case has been finalized. Hence, this case for not to disconnect the line till his case disposal, for rectification of bill amount from November, 2016 to January,2017, Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) as claim amount Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs. 5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand Only) as litigation cost.    

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 O.P. supplied yellow card at any time and also the bill amount of Rs. 93,238/- dt. 25.02.2017 for the period from February, 2017 to April, 2017 is false and it is also false that another bill from May, 2017 to July, 2017 is a ghostly bill. It is also false that due to fear of disconnection the complainant paid the initial amount of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand Only). All the bills were prepared as per reading of the meter as installed in the residence of the complainant and from time to time checking of the meter. They also checked the meter after request from the complainant and found correct by a challenge meter in presence of the complainant. So dismissal of the case has been prayed for.

In order to prove the case the complainant filed Deposition-in-Chief and he was not cross-examined by the O.P. and 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 case of the complainant is that the O.P. claimed inflated electric bill although there was no such consumption of electricity from the part of the complainant but the O.P. have denied such fact. 

So on perusal of the pleadings of both sides it is found that the main disputes relates to the electric bill which is related to the unit of consumption

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.