Debi Sengupta, Presiding Member.
This case has been filed U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant that the complainant is the consumer under the opposite parties since long and consuming electricity. The complainant states that the complainant on 16.7.2016 installed new electric meter in exchange of his old electric meter and the meter reading is at the time of installation of new electric meter was 000002 unit. The new electric meter no. is 18795711, consumer ID no. 501019355 and the meter no. is 753417.
The complainant also states and contends that after installation of new meter the opposite parties on 30.9.2016 first reading notice send to the complainant of 3336 unit and according to billing dt. 18.10.2016 it reveals that reading dt. 16.7.2016 is unit 2 and reading dt. 24.9.2016 is 3336 unit and accordingly October 2016 Rs. 9879.00/-, November 2016 Rs. 9879.00/- and December 2016 Rs. 9879.00/-. The complainant states that he is very much astonished that an imaginary bill has been sent to the complainant. The complainant after getting the imaginary bill went to the office of the opposite parties but he did not get any relief and opposite party harassed the complainant day by day thereafter the complainant send notice to the opposite parties and the opposite parties checked the meter and communicated the complainant the meter in question is ok, but regarding billing dispute the opposite parties did not take any steps for which the complainant had come before the Regional Grievance Redressal office, Hooghly region, W.B.S.E.D.C.L., Administrator Building. But, where the complainant was assured by the R.G.R.O. that the complainant could not entertained as because the time of prayer is elapsed. The complainant contends that due to the latches on the part of the opposite parties the complainant came late before the R.G.R.O., Hooghly Region.
The complainant in no way get solved the problem served lawyer notice upon the opposite parties. But, having no redress the complainant has come before the ld. Forum for redress with a prayer before to form with a direction upon the opposite parties by sending notice for appearance of the opposite parties and also prayed for a direction upon the opposite parties to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- for compensation to the complainant for loss and the complainant further prayed before the Forum with a direction upon the opposite parties not to disconnect the electric service connection bill till the disposal of the case.
The opposite party No. 2 contested the case by filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegation as leveled against him.
Issues/points for consideration
- Whether the complainant is the consumer of the opposite party or not?
- Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief or not?
DECISIONS WITH REASONS
All the points are taken together for easiness of the discussions of this case.
- In the light of the discussion hereinabove and from the materials on record, it transpires that the complainant is a Consumer as provided by the spirit of Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complainant here in is a consumer of the opposite party.
- Both the complainant and the opposite party are residence/having their office addresses within the district of Hooghly. For mental agony and other expenses which is within Rs. 2,00,000/- limit of this Forum. So, this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case.
- The complainant states that the complainant is a bona fide consumer of W.B.S.E.D.C.L. under S.M. Nasibpur, Hooghly and the opposite parties are the service provider and using the electricity from the opposite parties for the long time and on 16.7.2016 installed one new electric meter and at the time of installation of new electric meter the reading was 000002 unit.
The dispute cropped up when the opposite parties send notice dt. 30.9.2016 in respect of first electric meter reading of the complainant. It reveals that first reading is of 3336 unit and according to billing dt. 18.10.2016 the reading dt. 16.7.2016 is unit 2 and reading dt. 24.9.2016 is 3336 unit and according to October 2016 Rs. 9879.00/-, November 2016 Rs. 9879.00/- and December 2016 Rs. 9879.00/-. The complainant astonished and states that an imaginary/ inflated bill has been sent to the complainant. After getting the bills the complainant went to the offices of the opposite parties. But, the opposite parties did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. Finding no other alternative the complainant has come before the ld. Forum for proper redress. The complainant states and alleged that the complainant has come before the Forum for harassment and illegal act of the opposite parties and prayed for compensation before the ld. Forum.
The opposite party no. 2 files his written objection and humbly submits that the case is deserved to be dismissed on the point of maintainability and there is no deficiency on the part of the opposite party.
The opposite party states that para 3 in the complaint petition admitted the facts that the complainant submitted his appeal before the C.G.R.O., Hooghly but after perusing all documents including the report through letter dt. 23.7.2017 which was sent to the complainant has been pleased to hold that there is no merit in the allegation of the complainant. The opposite party further states that after receiving the complaint from the complainant from the side of W.B.S.E.D.C.L., checking was conducted by the technical personnel through installation of check meter and it was found the meter through which the complainant enjoys electricity is in perfect condition. So, the complainant was requested to clear dues to avoid disconnection. The opposite party no. 2 further states that as the complainant did not pay the public revenue as such the opposite party, W.B.S.E.D.C.L. is entitled to disconnect the service connection and the complainant does not sustained any economic loss. The opposite party no. 2 denied that the complainant suffered damages and there is any mental agony for not entertaining unlawful demand of the complainant. It is also denied by the opposite party no. 2 that there is no unlawful, illegal or arbitrary act on the part of the opposite party no. 2 and states that there is no merit at all in the present case and prayed before the Forum to dismiss the case with cost.
Having gone through the complaint of the complainant it is clear that the complainant has come before the ld. Forum for imaginary bill and the complainant on several occasions sent to the opposite parties’ office but get no fruitful solution. It is also stated by the complainant in his brief notes of argument that complainant getting no fruitful result the complainant went to the C.G.R.O., Hooghly but the said authority given no solution and the complainant laps the specified time before the C.G.R.O., for harassment and killing so much time. Thereafter the complainant sends legal notice to the opposite party no. 2 through the ld. Advocate but though received the notice the opposite party did not tried to solve the problem.
The opposite party no. 1 did not appear. So, proceeding runs ex parte against the opposite party no. 1.
Considering the facts and circumstances this Forum is in the opinion with the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of (>) CESC ltd. vs. N.M. Banka and others and reported in 1997 (1) CHN (SC) disputed the jurisdiction of Consumer Forum to adjudicate billing related disputes in accordance with Electricity Act, 2003 and WBERC (Electricity supply Code). Regulation referred to the Regional Grievance Redress at Office (R.G.R.O.) and thereafter the ld. Ombudsman herein also the complainant deviating from the said remedy filed this case before this ld. Forum.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of C.E.S.C Ltd. vs. N.M. banka and others has been pleased to hold that Specific statutory remedy provided by the Indian Electricity Act to the consumer should have not been allowed to be bypassed.
Here the instant case filed by the complainant relate to billing disputes. So, this Forum is not entitled to adjudicate the case under Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Hence,
it is
ordered
that
the C.C. Case No. 144/2018 be and the same is dismissed on contest without cost and compensation.
Dictated and corrected by me.
