The instant case was started on the basis of a written complaint filed by one Manirujjaman alias Md. Monirul, Village = Simraha, P.O. Mailor, under the P.S. Harishchandrapur, District – Malda under Sec. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986  and the same petition of complaint is registered as Complaint Case No. 63/2016.

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’ under the West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. being Connection No.MLI – 9337, Consumer ID No. 342240141. The complainant maintains his livelihood by running husking mill at village Simraha. The O.Ps after observing all formalities on 13/04/2017 gave electric connection to the said consumer premises. It has been further stated that the staff or employee of the O.P. was very reluctant to note down the meter reading in the yellow card. The complainant several times requested the meter reader to note down the consumption of electricity in the yellow card. But the result was fruitless. The complainant several times tried to submit the written complaint before the Station Manager but the official refused to entertain any written complaint from the consumer. It has been further stated that the consumer is very regular in payment of electric bill. It has been further stated that the meter was malfunctioning. So the consumer on several dates lodged a complaint before the O.P. to change meter so that the consumer may pay the actual amount. The consumer i.e. the complainant paid all the electric bill till 19/10/2010. It has been further stated that the operation of the husking mill was stopped from 2011 to 2012 due to low frequency of electricity. The meter was changed and the initial reading on 07/01/2013 was recorded as 23,189 units. The meter being No. B-33148 was found operative and the O.P. took the meter in their custody without recording anything in the yellow card. The complainant several times requested the O.Ps to make entry in the yellow card regarding the consumption of electricity but nothing was done. On 18/01/2014 the complainant paid the final payment. But after that the O.P. sent a bill to the complainant and asked him to pay Rs. 51,556/- (Rupees Fifty One Thousand Five Hundred Fifty Six Only). The complainant went to the office of Station Superintendent to enquire about the matter. The Station Superintendent told him that the said bill is found as no entry in the system of W.B.S.E.D.C.L. The complainant had submitted the RTI application but yet not received any queries. Suddenly, the complainant received a ghost bill amount of Rs. 2,53,717/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Three Thousand Seven Hundred Seventeen Only). The bill is without the basis as the complainant has no dues in payment of electric bill. Under such circumstances the complainant has prayed for an order to restrain the O.P. not to disconnect the electric connection and not to charge any amount as the final bill was paid on 18/11/2014 along with a prayer for litigation cost.

The petition has been contested by the O.Ps by filing written version denying all the material allegations as leveled against the O.Ps contending inter alia that the instant case is not maintainable. There is no cause of action to file the case against the O.Ps.

The further defense case is that there was no deficiency on the part of the O.P.

The further definite defense case is that the complainant used the electricity for running his husking mill and due to running of husking mill heavy consumption of electricity is made every day and the complainant is a defaulter of electric bill. The further defense case is that on 12/08/2015 physical meter reading was taken and the meter reading was 29,230 units and the bill amount comes to Rs.2,30,110/- (Rupees Two Lakh Thirty Thousand One Hundred Ten Only) as there was the outstanding dues so the total dues comes to Rs. 2,53,717/- (Rupees Two Lakh Fifty Three Thousand Seven Hundred Seventeen Only) on December, 2015 and the complainant is liable to pay the amount. Considering such facts and circumstances the instant case is liable to be dismissed.

In order to prove the case the complainant was examined as P.W.-1 and he has filed documents. The O.P. files the questionnaires. 

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 has paid the final bill on 18/11/2014. But all on a sudden the complainant received a ghost bill amount of Rs. 2,53,716(Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Three Thousand Seven Hundred Sixteen Only). The Ld.Lawyer of the complainant argued that there is no basis of claiming Rs. 2,53,716/-(Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Three Thousand Seven Hundred Sixteen Only). On the other hand the Ld.Lawyer of the O.P. argued that on physical inspection of the meter it is found that on 12/08/2015 the meter reading was 29,230 units and the bill amount comes to Rs. 2,30,110/- (Rupees Two Lakh Thirty Thousand One Hundred Ten Only) and there was some outstanding dues so the total bill comes to Rs. 2,53,717/- (Rupees Two Lakh Fifty Three Thousand Seven Hundred Seven Only). So the complainant is liable to pay the amount. It is well settled principle of law that when a consumer is consuming electricity is liable to pay the amount. The complainant did not produce any evidence to show that the meter reading has depicted in the meter on 12/08/2015. On physical inspection it was found excessive and not it was recorded in the meter. In the examination there is no specific denial to the fact that on 12.08.2015 there was physical meter reading. So considering such fact it is found there was a meter reading on 12/08/2015. Another point is to be considered whether this Forum disposed the case when there is a dispute of bill. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2013(8) Sec. 491 (U.P. Power Corporation Limited and Other Vs. Anis Ahemed. 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 Sec. 2 (1)(d) (ii) of this Act. But it is limited to the dispute relating to “Unfair Trade Practice and Restrictive Trade Practice” adopted by this service provider or if the consumer suffers from deficiency in service or hazardous service or the service provider has changed the price in excess of price fixed by or under any law. Moreover, under the provision of West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission if there is any dispute regarding the billing matter the complainant as consumer may approach to Regional Grievances Redressal Officer in accordance with the Regulation 3.5.1 of Notification No. 55/WBERC dt. 07/08/2013. If the matter is not settled at the level of Grievance Redressal Officer the Consumer can move to the Ombudsman in appeal.

So considering such fact this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try the matter. Moreover, the complainant has prayed an order to restrain the O.P. to disconnect the present electric connection without making any prayer for injunction either temporary or permanently as such no relief can be granted. In view of prayer No. 1 of the petition of complaint and other prayer is not maintainable in view of the decision as referred above by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as such the instant case is liable to be dismissed without cost.

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.