The instant case was started on the basis of a petition of complaint filed by one Mr. Santosh Mandal S/O. Late Kuttu Mandal Paranpur, PS: Pukuria, Dist: Malda (W.B.) PIN: 732 204 u/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the same petition was registered as Consumer Case No. 06/2018.

The fact of the case that the O.P. No.3 i.e. Paranpur C.C. Centre having his office at Paranpur, Malda and the complainant took electric connection from him so the O.P. No. 3 installed meter to the complainant’s house who is a Consumer of the O.P. No.3 being Consumer ID No.342244853.  He is very regular in payment of electric bill. The meter of the complainant was burnt and he filed a complaint to the Manager W.B.S.E.D.C.L., Paranpur CCC on 30/11/2015. But the O.P. neither changed the meter nor restored the connection and sent an inflated bill of Rs. 19,994/- (Rupees Nineteen Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety Four Only). Finding no other alternative the complainant filed a written complaint before the Deputy Assistant Director Consumer Affairs and FBP, Malda R.O. As per his advice he filed a case before the District Consumer Forum, Malda claiming for changing the meter or correction of electricity bills, refund of Rs. 19,994/- (Rupees Nineteen Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety Four Only) and Rs. 30,000/-(Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) for harassment and mental agony etc. 

The petition is 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 statements made in the petition are all false and fabricated.

The further defense case is that Santosh Mandal submitted an application on 29/12/204 stating that the meter which was installed to his premises was defective and that has been mentioned in the yellow card and no bill was sent to the complainant as per defective meter category but at the time of spot billing at the house of the complainant through spot billing machine the reader mixed it up as defective meter as there was a huge gap of the yellow card entry but subsequently the reader found the meter as correct one and prepared the bill accordingly with a unit of  4030 KW on 26/06/2015. But thereafter the complainant on 30/11/2015 submitted an application stating that the meter was burned and the meter reading showing higher.  But the concerned meter is a hybrid meter which can show the cumulative reading throughout all the time. Thereafter, the meter was burned. The complainant was requested to pay the bill but the complainant did not pay the bill as such he is a habitual defaulter in payment of electric bill.  The O.P. has prayed for dismissal of the case.  

During trial the complainant was himself examined as PW-1 and cross-examined. No other witness was examined on behalf of the complainant. On the other hand the O.P. has examined one witness viz. Arko Basak Assistant Engineer and Station Manager, Malatipur Customer Care Centre (CCC) as O.P.W.-1. No other witness was examined.

  Now the point for consideration:- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?

:DECISION WITH REASONS::

Bonafide consumer has a liability to make payment of electric bill for consumption of electricity but on perusal of record it is found that the complainant did not pay the bill for which the bill amount was accumulated. So the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as because he is a defaulter in payment of electric bill. It is a fact that according to the case of the complainant the meter reading was high. There is a dispute of the meter reading but how meter reader found the meter was correct and he prepared the bill with a unit 4030 KWS and the concerned meter was a hybrid meter which can show the cumulative reading throughout all the time.        

So on considering the facts and circumstances it is found that the meter reading was correct and the complainant did not pay any amount towards the bill.         

Moreover, in view of the case law 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.