Presented by Sri G.S.Pradhan, President . <br /> The case pertains to deficiency in service as envisaged under the provision of Consumer Protection Act-1986 and its brief fact is as follows:-<br /> <br /> The Grandfather of the Complainant had taken electric connection since long who is now old and bed ridden as such the Complainant is running the hotel at Kathdera to maintain his family out of the income of the hotel. He uses four fans and four CFL bulbs in that hotel. The Complainant was regularly paying the bills as supplied by the Opposite Parties. Found the bill supplied by the Opposite Parties for the month of June-2007 and August-2007 the meter reading was shown as 5408 and 8158 respectively the Complainant lodged complain before the Opposite Party No.1(one) but he did not taken any interest to go for a proper meter reading. As the Complainant vehemently protested against the bills, the Opposite Party No.1(one) directed to deposit Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand)only in every alternative month. Further the bill Dt. 18/03/2009 for a sum of Rs.16,052/-(Rupees sixteen thousand fifty two)only wherein the meter reading was shown as 10382 was supplied by the Opposite Parties to the Complainant. The Complainant made complaint and the vigilance squared verified the meter on Dt.31/03/2009 and found that the reading was 6609 and the seal of the meter was intact. After the report of the vigilance squared, the Opposite Party No.1(one) did not ractified the bill but directed his staff to disconnect the power supply to the hotel of the Complainant. On Dt.04/04/2009 one of the staff of the Opposite Parties disconnected the power supply to the hotel of the Complainant with out any prior notice of disconnection.<br /> <br /> The Complainant contends that for such illegal act of the Opposite Parties he suffered loss with financially and mentally and claims Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only towards loss and damage, Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand)only towards mental agony and Rs.2,000/-(Rupees two thousand)only as litigation expenses. Further the Complainant prays for restoration of power supply and preparation of the bill as per the meter reading reported by the vigilance squared, Burla.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Parties in its version questions the maintainability of the case on the ground that, the present dispute relating to electrical meter and billing disputes is comes under the jurisdiction of electrical inspector of the district.<br /> <br /> The present petition filed by the Complainant is not maintainable as because the Complainant's grandfather was a consumer of Opposite Parties and not the Complainant. They denied the disconnection of power supply to the hotel of the Complainant at any point of time and the line is still in used by the grandfather of the Complainant with out any interruption.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Parties contends that, the grandfather of the Complainant is using more electricity upto 2 KV which is more than the agreed with WESCO i.e. 0.5 K.W., as per the inventory report of the Opposite Party No.1(one) Dt.04/05/2009 which was accepted and signed by the Complainant.<br /> <br /> Further as the avarments in the complaint petition are not made by the consumer of Opposite Parties the allegation made against the Opposite Parties are false and denied by the Opposite Parties.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Parties prays for dismissal of the case with cost.<br /> <br /> We have gone through the complaint petition, Opposite Parties's version as well as the copy of documents filed by the Parties and find as follows:-<br /> <br /> Admittedly the Complainant's grandfather had taken electricity connection to his hotel since long and is a consumer of Opposite Parties. Subsequently, when he became old and bad ridden his grandson the present Complainant runs the same hotel and enjoy the electric power as his beneficiary. The Complainant is also paying the bill amount to the Opposite Parties regularly. As such the Complainant is a consumer of Opposite parties as per Section (2)(d)(ii) of the Amending Act 62 of 2002 of Consumer Protection Act-1986. And the Complainant has availed the services of the Opposite Parties for earning his livelihood from the said hotel and not for commercial purpose, the present case is maintainable.<br /> <br /> It reveals from the pleading of the Parties that the dispute between the parties for not rectification of the excessive bill Dt.18/03/2009 for a sum of Rs.16,052/-(Rupees sixteen thousand fifty two)only where in the meter reading shown as 10,382 and for disconnection of the power supply to the hotel of the Complainant. An interim order was issued on Dt.07/04/2009 directing the Opposite Parties to reconnect the power supply to the hotel of the Complainant. The Complainant has not informed the Forum as to whether the Opposite Parties have reconnected the power supply or not. On the other hand the Opposite Parties in their version categorically denied the allegation of disconnection and contends that the Opposite Parties have never disconnected the line to the hotel of the Complainant at any point of time. The Complainant has filed one copy of document signed by one Kumpati Biswal, line man, who has stated that, he has disconnected the line of Babulal Choudhury on Dt.04/04/2009. It is also seen in another copy of document, that is inventory report Dt.04/05/2009 prepare by the Opposite Party No.1(one) after verification of the hotel, that the supply was present at the time of verification and also marked that the meter was defective where in the Complainant and the line man admitting to the verification by the Opposite Party No.1(one) put their signature on the inventory report. But the copies of documents filed by the Complainant is contradictory to each other. The Complainant has not adduced any concrete evidence to prove that, the Opposite Parties have disconnected the power supply to the hotel of the Complainant.<br /> <br /> Undisputedly, the dispute between the parties are for non rectification of the excessive bill. Any dispute arises relating to any excessive bill issued by the Opposite Parties than the matter shall be agitate in the Forum constituted under the provision of O.E.R.C. Code-2004. As per the code, the Complainant should have approached the Consumer Redressal Forum of the WESCO Company established under the Act. But the Complainant has not made any approach against the said excessive bill with the Opposite Parties's authority. With out filing any complaint against the said bill for rectification, the Complainant has filed their case under the Consumer Forum. Since there is an alternative remedy by way of Appeal to its designated authority under the Electricity Act is available to its consumer like this complaint for reconciliation of the excessive bill amount, the present proceeding is not maintainable.<br /> <br /> The Complainant may prefer an Appeal before the Appellate Authority, as per the provision of O.E.R.C. Code-2004 for rectification of the Bill Dt.18/03/2009 for Rs.16,052/-(Rupees sixteen thousand fifty two)only with in a month from the date of this Order. The Opposite Parties shall not take any coercive action for non-payment of the said alleged bill against the Complainant. The Complainant shall go on paying the subsequently bill in time regularly to avoid disconnection.<br /> <br /> In view of above fact and circumstances as discussed, the Complaint is dismissed.<br /> Complaint disposed of accordingly.<br /> No cost/Compensation.