JUDGMENT

The instant case was instituted on the basis of a petition of complaint filed by the complainant Amiruddin, S/o. Maniruddin Ahmed, Village – Sahabajpur, P.O. Naikanda, P.S. Chanchal, District - Malda u/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which was registered as Consumer Case No.19/2019.

The fact of the case as revealed from the petition of complaint as well as from the evidence is that the complainant is a bonafide customer of under the O.P.s i.e. West  Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. and he applied for granting electricity for running a submersible pump for the erection purpose of the landed property of the complainant for earning his livelihood.

That after all due formalities the electric connection was given to the complainant and the Consumer I.D. No. of the complainant is 300208369 and meter No. 509921 of Load 4.38 KVA. From the evidence it is further revealed that in the last part of December,2017 the said meter was not working and the complainant intimated such fact to the O.P. No.1. After sometime one employee of the O.P. No.1 came and inspected the meter on 12/01/2018 and wrote his remark on the yellow card. Thereafter, the O.P. No.1 sent a bill to the complainant for which the complainant lodged his complaint to the O.P. No.1 on 14/12/2017 regarding claim of huge amount of bill. Again on 01/02/2019 for the month of February, 2019 O.P. No.1 is sending a bill of Rs. 84,516/- (Rupees Eighty Four Thousand Five Hundred Sixteen Only). At that time the complainant requested the O.P. No.1 to change his defective meter but his request was in vain. The O.P. No.1 is sending bill in excessive manner which is not according to law. So the complainant has come to this Forum now Commission  to redress his remedy.

The complainant has prayed for reassess the bill and not to disconnect the service connection and change of meter along with compensation.

The petition has been contested by the O.Ps by filing the written version denying all the material allegation as levelled against him contending inter alia that the instant case is not maintainable in its present form. The case is barred by law of limitation, the case is barred by principle of waiver, estoppels and acquiescence and the claim of the complainant is not at all bonafide.

The further defense case is that the complainant is a habitual defaulter in payment of electric bills.

The further defense case is that the meter was in O.K. condition from August 2014 to June 2018 and the period of total units consumed by the complainants 25,571 units and the aforesaid consumption of electricity by the complainant is 555 units per month. The meter was found defective from the month of July 2018 and the meter was replaced on 14/11/2018 and reading on 26/03/2019 was 2183 units i.e. average unit of the new meter is 545 units per month and he did not pay any amount for consumption of electricity. Considering such fact 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 and he filed some documents as per Firisti.

On the other hand the O.P. did not adduce any evidence to its defense.

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

::DECISION WITH REASONS::

On perusal of the record it is found that the complainant is a defaulter in bonafidi consumer has legal obligation to pay electricity bill for consumption of electricity and no bill was paid by the complainant.

Moreover, here it is to be mentioned that when there is a dispute as regards to the electric bill in view of the case law the matter is to be referred to the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission.

According to the Regulation 3.5.1 (a) “in a 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 of the Central Grievance Redressal Officer in accordance with the provisions of the concerned Regulations. In such a case, the aggrieved consumer, pending disposal of the dispute, may, under protest, pay the lesser amount out of the following two options…….”

In this regard, the Ld.Lawyer of the O.Ps refers a case law of Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in first Appeal No. A/907/2017(Divisional Engineer) and Divisional Manager, Dakshin Dinnajpur Division Vs. Smt. Asha Das wherein the Hon’ble State Commission held that the District Forum now Commission has no jurisdiction to dispute the matter when there is  a dispute as regards to the bill amount wherein the Hon’ble State Commission suggested that the complainant may approach to R.G.R.O.

So considering such facts and circumstances the instant case is not maintainable in this Forum now Commission. Hence, the case is 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.Ps free of cost on proper application.