Hon,ble Mr. Sudip Niyogi, President
This case arises out of a complaint filed by the Complainant Anowar Hosen u/s 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 against the Op West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. The Complainant who was a consumer of electricity in his premises being Service Connection No. 248770, and Consumer ID No.400248770 paid the bills regularly issued by the Op all along. He was thunderstruck on received of a bill for the months of December, 2016 to February, 2017 which showed the units consumed as 5895 and the amount of bill was Rs.57,287/-. Having received of that bill, the Complainant went to the Office of the Op No.1 several times and narrated the fact and also filed a written complaint on 30.12.2016. Subsequently, the Complainant got another bill for the months of March, 17 to May, 17 showing units consumed was only 07 and the amount of the bill was Rs.57,801/- i.e. including arrear amount. Despite a complaint was filed against the Ops by the Complainant, the Ops did not take any steps to check the amount of the bill on the basis of his actual consumption and issue fresh bill. Later, the electric connection of the Complainant was disconnected by the Ops. According to the Complainant, the acts of the Ops put the Complainant in extreme mental pain and agony. So, he filed this complaint praying for several reliefs including rectification of the bills and changing the Meter etc.
The Op No.1 contested the case by filing w/v, evidence on affidavit and also written argument raising dispute on the claims of the Complainant. According to them, the electricity bills of the Complainant were rightly issued and there was no defect in the Meter. So, they prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
The Op No.2 did not contest the case. Therefore, the case against them was ex-parte.
During argument, Ld. Counsel appearing for the Op No.1 strongly argued that this complainant is not at all maintainable as the dispute is only regarding the bill amount. Complainant did not avail of the specific provision for settlement of dispute regarding bill amount.
Having heard the submission and having gone through the materials on record, we think, it would be convenient and wise to decide first about the maintainability of the instant complaint.
From the petition of complaint and also evidence on affidavit submitted by the Complainant, it is found that the Complainant filed this case raising a dispute about exorbitant bill amount having been issued by the Ops in respect of the domestic electricity connection to the house of the Complainant. It is alleged by the Complainant that despite repeated requests, the Ops did not issue fresh bill on the basis of actual consumption by the Complainant and subsequently, the electricity connection was disconnected by the Ops.
It is also the claim of the Complainant that he is a consumer within the definition of the term under CP Act, 1986. Therefore, this case is quite maintainable.
On the other hand, Ld. Agent appeared for the OP No.1 asserted that the Meter of the Complainant, which he claimed to be defective, is quite O.K. and that would be evident from the reading as depicted in their written objection.
The Ld. Agent appeared for the OP No.1 also submitted that in the instant case, the Complainant raised the dispute regarding payment of bill issued by the Ops in respect of electricity connection to the Complainant’s house and this- being a bill dispute, the instant case is not maintainable in this Forum as the Complainant avoided the statutory provision of remedy therefor and approached this Forum. In this connection, the Ld. Agent appeared for the OP No.1 has drawn our attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court of India(21.11.1996) Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Ltd.- Vs - N.M. Banka and Another and also one judgment dated 1st June, 2018 by Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal. He also drew our attention to the provision of West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electric Supply Code) Regulations 2013 which was published in the Kolkata Gazette on 07.08.2013. We have gone through the provisions of the said Notification/Regulations and also the aforesaid decisions referred to by the Ld. Agent appeared for the OP No.1.
Point No.3.5.1 and 3.5.2 of the said Notification which are found to be relevant for our case read as under:-
3.5.1 In case there is any dispute in respect of the billed 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, if the consumer is aggrieved by the order of the Grievance Redressal Officer or 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:-
- An amount equal to the sum claimed from him in the disputed bill, or
- An amount equal to the electricity charges due from him for each month calculated on the basis of average charge for electricity paid by him during the preceding six month,
The amount so calculated provisionally as per clause (ii) above by the licensee and tendered by the consumer shall be accepted by the licensee against that bill on provisional basis.
3.5.2 If any aggrieved consumer makes a provisional payment, as aforesaid, no penal measure including disconnection for non-payment shall be taken against him till the dispute is settled either at the level of the Grievance Redressal Officer or the Central Grievance Redressal Officer or the Ombudsman, as the case may be. However, imposition of a delayed payment surcharge, if applicable, shall not count towards a penal measure for this purpose.
So, it is clear from the above that there has been specific provision in the said Regulations about settlement of dispute in respect of bill amount of electricity before the Grievance Redressal Officer or the Central Grievance Redressal Officer and thereafter to the Ombudsman in appeal against the order of Grievance Redressal Officer or the Central Grievance Redressal Officer as the case may be.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court also observed that in case of dispute or difference about the Meter or the correctness of the bill, the consumer should avail the statutory remedy provided by Indian Electricity Act and said statutory remedy should not have been allowed to be bypassed.
The West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electric Supply Code) Regulations 2013 came into being from the Indian Electricity Act and that being so, the provisions in respect of dispute regarding the bill amount must have to be availed of by the consumer. Here, the present Complainant admittedly did not avail the said statutory provision and right away approached this Forum seeking redressal.
It is not the case of the Complainant that the Ops adopted unfair trade practice or restricted trade practice etc. from which he suffered from the deficiency in service or something like that.
This being the position following the aforesaid discussions, we are of the opinion that the instant case of the Complainant is not maintainable.
Hence, the instant case is dismissed being not maintainable.
However, the Complainant may approach the proper authority for his redressal.
Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied to the parties concerned by hand/by Post forthwith, free of cost for information & necessary action. The copy of the Final Order/Judgement also available at www.confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me.
