The instant case was started on the basis of a petition of complaint filed by one Rajkumar Saha S/O. Lt. Manindra Nath Saha Vill. – Silampur, P.O. Bahadurpur, P.S. Kaliachak Dist. Malda, Pin -732 201. which was registered as complaint Case No. 86/2017 u/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
The fact of the case as revealed from the petition of complaint as well as from the evidence is that the father of the complainant Late Manindra Nath Saha was a domestic consumer under the O.P. No.1 and after demise of the father of the complainant the complainant used to pay the electric bill as raised by the O.P. No.1. Thus by such Act the complainant became a consumer under the O.P. vide Consumer I.D. No. 342026336.
The further case of the complainant is that the complainant paid money against the bill up to October, 2014. But subsequently, the O.P. sent a bill of Rs. 57,138/- (Rupees Fifty Seven Thousand One Hundred Thirty Eight Only) for a period from 18/12/14 to 16/02/15 which is beyond the imagination of the complainant. The complainant issued a letter about the genuinely of status of the meter installed by the O.P. But the O.P. No.1 did not inform the actual status of the meter and installed a new meter bearing No.L-1283093. Thereafter, the O.P. again issued a bill of Rs. 13,662 on 17/12/2016 for the period February 2015 to April, 2015 and the bill shows outstanding of Rs. 12,953. 46P from 2014 to 2015which is itself a contradictory one . The complainant is ready to pay the actual bill. After receiving the letter from the complainant dt.17/04/2017 the O.P. No.1 issued a letter in favour of the complainant stating that bill for the period November, 2014 to January,2015 has already been generated as per W.B.S.E.D.C.L. norms on the basis of challenged meter and it cannot be generated further. Ultimately, there was no verbal result. This is why the complainant has filed the case before this Forum to redress his grievances.
The petition has been contested by the O.P. by filing written version denying all the material allegations as leveled against the O.P. contending inter alia that the instant case is not maintainable in its present form, the case is barred by principle of waiver, estoppels and acquiescence.
The definite defense case is that the complainant got service connection from the O.P. No.3’s office in the year 2015 but since the date of getting the electric connection the complainant did not pay the electric bill amount for actual consumption of electricity
The further defense case is that as per request a challenge meter was installed by the O.P. No.3 and the meter reading almost shows the same. The complainant was defaulter in payment of electric bill as such the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.
In order to prove the case the complainant was himself examined as P.W.-1 and he filed the document which has been marked Ext.1, 2, 6A. On the other hand one Riton Chowdhury was examined as O.P.W-1.
Now the point for determination:-Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
::DECISION WITH REASONS::
On perusal of the petition of complaint it is found that the dispute relates to the complainant only to the unit of consumption of electricity.
In view of the case law reported in First Civil Appeal No. 907/17 of Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal it is found that when there was a dispute as regards to the bill, the complainant will approach to the Regional Grievances Redressal Officer in accordance with the Regulation 3.51 of West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission. Moreover, in another case reported in RP 102/2018 the same view was taken by the Hon’ble State Commission, West Bengal. So in view of the case laws referred above the instant case is not maintainable before this 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 order be given to the both parties free of cost on proper application.
