The fact of the case as mentioned in the petition of complaint is that the complainant is a resident of Vill. Amlapara, Post Chanchal, Dist. Malda, PIN – 732 123.  In the petition of complaint it has been mentioned that the complainant is a ‘Consumer’ u/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 under the W.B.S.E.D.C.L. Chanchal Group Electric Supply being Consumer No. 342280646. Due to non-receipt of the electric bill in proper time the complainant on 14/08/2016 informed the Electric Office and after that he received a ghostly bill of Rs. 1,35,137.97 for the Month of October, 2015, November, 2015 and December, 2015. He assured the complainant to verify the bill thoroughly as there the bill was irrelevant. But after that the complainant got another bill of Rs. 64,870/- (Rupees Sixty Four Thousand Eight Hundred Seventy Only) for the month of January, 2016, February, 2016 and March, 2016.  The complainant then met with the Station Manager, Chanchal Group Electric Supply and he then detected irrelevancy in the said bill and assured the complainant to verify the bill thoroughly. According to his suggestion the complainant made a complaint petition intimating him that that he would like to verify the bill thoroughly for six months i.e. from October, 2015 to March, 2016 and upto 28/11/2016 he met the Station Manager, Chanchal Group Electric Supply repeatedly but the complainant has got no fruitful result. He again made a complaint for the irrelevant bill on 29/11/2016 to the Station Manager, Chanchal Group Electric Supply and gave a copy of this complaint to the Divisional Manager W.B.S.E.D.C.L. (North Malda) Chanchal Sub Division. The complainant repeatedly has done the same thing on 05/01/2017 when the bill amount for the Month of April, 2016, May, 2016 and June, 2016 was Rs. 1,50,980.00 (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty Only) and on 03/04/2017 when the bill amount for the month of July,2016, August,2016 and September, 2016 was 1,57,598.00 ( Rupees One Lakh Fifty Seven Thousand Five Hundred Ninety Eight Only ). The Station Manager assured him to verify the bill thoroughly. On 17/05/2017 the Chanchal Group Electric Supply cut the connection of the electric line of the complaint without giving him notice. The Station Manager, Chanchal Group Electric Supply, W.B.S.E.D.C.L informed the complainant that due to nonpayment of bill the line has been cut out. According to his proposal the complainant then met and informed the matter to the Divisional Manager, West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (North Malda). He suggested the complainant to deposit Rs.50,000(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) at that moment they would give him the line. The complainant assured him to give him Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) as spot payment and then he would give him Rs. 35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand Only) after one or two days. The Station Manager and Divisional Manager also misbehaved with the complainant. The complainant lost his faith upon the W.B.S.E.D.C.L and came to the Assistant Director, C.A. & F.B.P. Malda R.O. and informed the matter  for mediation. But ultimately no fruitful result has been come out and the complainant has filed a case in the Consumer Forum, Malda as D.F. C Case No. 62/2017 u/s 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.    

The petition has been contested by the O.Ps by filing the written version denying all the material allegation as leveled against the O.Ps. contending inter alia that the instant case is not maintainable  in its present form. The case has been filed by suppressing the real fact. The case is barred by principle of waiver, estoppels, acquiescence and the case is also barred by law of limitation.

The definite defense case is that the complainant is a habitual defaulter of payment of bills. He actually did not pay bill on regular basis and according to the consumed unit the bill has been raised up to that amount.  So there is no relevancy in his complaint petition and also the case is liable to be dismissed.

In order to prove the case the complainant filed Examination-in-Chief. The O.P. filed questionnaires in view of the Examination –in-Chief and the complainant also gave reply to the questionnaires.  As no witness was present on behalf of the complainant,. The O.P. did not adduce any evidence. Hence, evidence of other side was closed. The complainant and the O.P. filed a written argument.             

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 argued that submitted that the meter of the Complainant was changed on 12/04/2012  at that time the outstanding was Rs.4,475/-. The consumption described by the O.P. from January, 2012 to March, 2012 as per available record the previous meter reading was zero and present reading was 120 units. The bill failed to explain the adjustment unit of 1710. Though the complainant shelled out all outstanding after 120.   Bill made by the O.P.  on 28/03/2016 shows previous reading 5579 and present reading 19670 but it is astonishing that in the yellow card the respondent wrote meter reading 569  but old one 17611 units. So there was massive discrepancies on the part of the O.Ps. The complainant wrote several times to the O.P. for these types of discrepancies but the O.P. did not pay heed to the complainant which is tantamount to deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. The complainant paid Rs. 5095/- as per electricity dated 20/04/2015 in installments. It is surprising that the bill dt. 11/07/2017 previous reading was 4556 and present reading was 6091. It is an abnormal difference for a domestic consumer. The complainant informed the matter to the C.A. F.B.P. Malda R.O. and there was mediation between the two parties  for adjustment of Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand Only) but the O.P. in the case of their claim of Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees Forty thousand Only) has not mentioned that as per order of the Consumer Affairs Department Malda the amount of first installment should be Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand Only). On 08/07/2017 the complainant wrote a letter addressed to the Station Manager, W.B.S.E.D.C.L. and also to Consumer Affairs, Malda mentioning all facts but the O.P. did not bother to send a reply. On  31/07/20217 a letter was issued by the O.Ps not mentioning amount decided by the Consumer Affairs Department. So they are showing negligence from the very inception to follow the order of the Consumer Affairs Department, Malda and also unable to explain adjustment unit of 1710 though the consumer never refused to pay legitimate amount. The updation of the yellow card and execution of the same has not been done properly in a regular manner which is a sheer negligence of duty or deficiency of service.

In the argument the Ld.Lawyer of the complainant argued that on 17/05/2017 behind the knowledge of the complainant the Chanchal Group Electric Supply disconnected the line of the complainant but the complainant met with Station Manager Chanchal and already got intimation that due to non-payment of bill Electric Bill., the service connection was disconnected. As per request of the complainant, one challenge meter was installed with the initial meter where the reading shows 203 and in the old meter it was 17245. Then on 28/01/2016 reading was taken from both and 569 was in the challenge  meter and 17611 was in the old meter. So it is clear that 366 units were consumed by the complainant in 40 days. It was observed that in winter season 823 units were consumed in one quarter in the summer time it is observed 40% to 50 %. In the case of meter reading the complainant has nexus with meter reader and it was seen that the meter reader shown meter reading abnormally low i.e.0 units or very low units and it is seen for 40 months. But on 28/06/2014 new bill was generated 14091 units and average monthly consumption was 353 units for 43 months.  Lastly he argued that the complainant has been several times requested by the O.P. to pay his outstanding dues but he denied to pay the same. On the contrary he request the O.Ps to correct the irrelevancy of the bill. But the O.P. did not perform and he must pay the same as the bill was computer generated.                                 

The next view is to be considered that the O.P. gave questionnaires. In para 4 it is mentioned that had he submitted any complaint on 14/06/2016 to the O.P. No.2’s office. In reply he gave he has not recollected the same. In Para 9 the it is mentioned that Had he paid any installment amount to the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2. till now. In reply the reply to the same is he has not paid any installments

So it is palpably clear that the complainant is very irregular to make payment of electricity bill and the O.P. requested the complainant to pay the bill amount but the complainant did not respond to them   but one case law is required to be furnished which is stated below.  

In view of the case law reported by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal in its first appeal A907/2017(Divisional Engineer and Divisional Manager South Dinajpur V/S. Smt. Asha Das) the Hon’ble State Commission held that when there was a dispute as regards to the electric bill the consumer will pray to the Regional Grievance Redressal Officer in accordance with the Regulation 3.5.1 of Notification No. 55/WBERC dt. 07/08/2013. According to the Regulation 3.5.1 in 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 or the Central Grievance Redressal Officer, in accordance with the provisions of the concerned Regulations. So, in view of that case law as decided by the Hon’ble State Commission this Forum has got no jurisdiction to decide the matter in question as it relates to the dispute of the bill amount. The Hon’ble State Commission also expressed the same view in Revision Petition No. RP 102/2018 arising out of the case of Malda District Consumer 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 judgment be given to the Complainant/O.P. free of cost on proper application.