The instant case was started on the basis of a petition of complaint filed by one Fariad Sarkar S/o. Late Hasimuddin Sarkar of Vill. Pakuahat, PO: Pakuahat, PS- Bamongola, Dist. Malda(W.B.) u/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the same petition was registered as Consumer Case No. 30/2017.

The fact of the case as revealed from the petition of complaint as well as from the evidence is that the complainant is a ‘Consumer’ having a Consumer ID No. 300031262 under the O.P. i.e the West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd., Bamongola Customer Centre. The fact of the case is that the staff of the O.P. was found reluctant to record the meter consumption in the yellow card. The complainant several times requested the O.Ps to record the meter reading in the yellow card but ultimately there was no fruitful result. The complainant was very regular in payment of electric bills. The complainant used to pay Rs.300/-(Rupees Three Hundred Only) for consumption of electricity bill as his consumption level was very low but on 10/11/2017 the O.P. sent a bill of Rs. 14,713/-(Rupees Fourteen Thousand Seven Hundred Thirteen Only) and after receiving such bill the complainant became perplexed and requested the O.P. to rectify the inflated bill but all the request of the complainant was in vain.  This is why the complainant has come to this Forum to redress his grievance by praying out reliefs.

The petition has been contested by the O.Ps by filing written version denying all the material allegations as leveled against the department contending inter alia that the instant case is not maintainable in its present form. The complaint is barred by the principle of waiver, estoppels and acquiescence.

The further defense case is that the complainant has not come to this forum with a clean hand.  The further definite defense case is that the complainant consumed the electricity and the meter reading showed the said consumption correctly. On 05/01/2017 the previous meter reading was 1744 to 5972 i.e. the complainant has consumed 4228 units.

The further defense case is that there is no scope to send bill to any consumer whimsically as because every bill is computer generated. The further defense case is that the O.P. tested the meter of the complainant by another check meter and the meter readings of the meters were found almost same. So considering such facts and circumstances the instant case is liable to be dismissed.

During trial the complainant was himself examined as PW-1 and cross-examined. No other witness was examined on behalf of the complainant. During trial the complainant filed the documents. On the other hand Biresh Chandra Mondal was examined as P.W.-1 and cross-examined No other witness was examined on behalf of the O.Ps

Now the point for determination:- 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 submitted that the complainant used to pay Rs. 330/- (Rupees Three Hundred Thirty Only) for consumption of electricity quarterly but all on a sudden the bill of Rs. 41,713(Rupees Forty One Thousand Seven Hundred Thirteen Only) was issued by the O.P. and that bill is excessive and without any basis. So the bill should be rectified. On the other hand the Ld.Lawyer of the O.P. argued that after receiving complaint from the complainant a check meter was installed and such fact was admitted by PW-1. The meter reading of the meters were almost same. So there is no question of demanding excessive bill. This Forum is also the same view of the submission of the Ld.Lawyer that as and when the check meter shows the almost same consumption of electricity. So it can be said that there was excessive demand.

On perusal of the petition of complaint 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 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.