The instant case was started on the basis of a petition of complaint lodged by one Ahedul Hoque (aged 51 yrs.) of village Dumuria under the P.S. Harischandrapur, Dist. Malda and the petition of complaint which was registered before this Forum as Complaint Case No. 35/2016.

The fact of the case as revealed from the petition of complaint as well as from the evidence is that the complainant is a Bona fide Consumer under the then West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited and the Consumer as bearing I.D. No. 342248395. The complainant got the electric connection for industrial purpose at a rural place for running his mill. It has been further stated in the petition of complaint that the complainant lastly paid bill on 08/09/2015 and after the payment of such bill no employee of the O.P. came to the premises of the mill of the complainant to read the meter reading. The O.P. No.3 all on a sudden sent a bill to the complainant amounting to Rs. 1,65, 571/- within due date and after lapse of due date the amount was Rs. 1,67,059/- for the consumption of 20052 Units. The bill is without any basis for which the complainant sent a Lawyer’s notice through his Ld.Lawyer Partha Roy on 27/04/2016 by Registered Post with A.D. But in spite of receiving such notice the O.P. did not pay any heed as such finding no other alternative the complainant came to this Forum to get his relief.

The petition has been contested by the O.Ps by filing the written version denying all the material allegations as leveled against the O.Ps contending inter alia that the instant case is not maintainable in law and facts. The complainant has got no cause of action to file this case and the case is barred under the principle of waiver, estoppels and acquiescence.

The definite defense case is that the complainant is an worst defaulter in payment of bill for the consumption of electricity to his establishment. The further defense case is that the present bills are prepared in on line as per meter reading.

Considering such facts and circumstances the instant case is liable to be dismissed with cost.

  In order to prove the case the complainant was himself examined as P.W.-1 and cross-examined. No other witness was examined on behalf of the complainant. On the other hand the O.P. did not adduce any evidence. During trial the complainant has proved and marked the documents as per exhibited list. 

 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 O.Ps i.e. the Electricity Distribution Company sent the bill without any basis and the bill is excessive for which the complainant has come to this Forum with proper relief as the complainant is a ‘Consumer’ under the definition of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

The Ld.Lawyer of the complainant further submitted that on perusal of the further bill it will be found that the complainant regularly paid the bill and at that time the amount of the bill was corrected. As corrected consumption of electricity was reflected in the meter but after the payment of the bill no employee visited the industrial premises of the complainant for which the amount was became due as such the bill amount was heavy. On the other hand the Ld.Lawyer of the O.P. argued that the complainant is a defaulter of payment of Electricity Bill as such a heavy amount was accumulated. So far further submitted that in the case of industrial establishment monthly bill is prepared on the basis of actual meter reading and the bill is prepared through on line process. So there was no irregularity in preparing the electric bill. As such the case is liable to be dismissed.  On perusal of the record it is found that the dispute relates to the consumption of electricity and there is a dispute of calculation of unit.  

In view of the case law decided by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal in First Appeal No.A907/2017(Divisional Engineer and Divisional Manager, South Dinajpur of W.B.S.E.D.C.L. Vs. Smt. Asha Das wherein the Hon’ble State Commission held that when there is a dispute as regards to the bill the complainant should approach to the Regional Grievances Redressal Officer (RGRO) in accordance with the Regulation 3.51 of Notification No. 55/WBRC dt. 07/08/2017. Moreover, in view of the case law reported in 85CC491(2013) (UP Power Corporation Limited Vs. Anish Ahmed) wherein it was held that the Consumer Forum has limited the scope to decide the dispute relating to unfair trade practice or restrictive trade practice adopted by the service provider or if the consumer suffers from deficiency in service or hazardous service or service provider has changed the price in excess of the price by or under any law. For that incident we did not find that there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps or charged a price in excess of the price fixed by or under any law.

Moreover, in a case law decided by the Hon’ble State Consumer Forum,W.B. in Revision Petition No. RP/102/218 (State Electricity Distribution Company Vs. Jainuddin) this case arose on the basis of an order of the Malda District Consumer Forum wherein the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission hold a same view.

So on considering the facts and circumstances the instant case is not maintainable before this Forum.   

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.