Hon'ble Mr. Sudip Niyogi, President
This complaint u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been lodged by the Complainant against the OP. In brief, the case of the Complainant is that he is a consumer for electricity at his house within the district of Cooch Behar having Consumer ID No.424068692 and he paid the electricity bill regularly. However, on 17.01.17, an electric bill amounting to Rs.9,553/- for the period from September, 2016 to November, 2016 for his domestic electric connection at his address at Vill. Chandranagar Colony, P.O. Guriahati, Cooch Behar was received. At the relevant time, the Complainant was in Kolkata and one Gautam Sarkar, who is the Caretaker of the Complainant informed him about the spot delivery of the bill by a staff of WBSEDCL, New Town Sector, Cooch Behar i.e. OP. On being aggrieved about the huge amount of the bill, Complainant personally visited the Office of the OP and lodged a written complaint. According to him, the amount of the said bill was quite absurd and unrealistic. However, he, in order to avoid harassment at his old age paid the amount of the said bill on 15.02.17 vide Money Receipt No.58400054168 under protest.
According to him, his house remained under lock and key for more than 10 years and only one Caretaker is there for security purpose and the Complainant visits his house occasionally. It is alleged that even after the protest lodged with the OP by the Complainant, the OP did nothing to redress his grievance despite repeated reminders and ultimately on 30.01.18, one communication was received by the Complainant from OP denying about the amount of the said bill being unrealistic. Thus, the Complainant having aggrieved, approached this Forum seeking several reliefs.
The OP contested this case by filing their w/v, evidence on affidavit and written argument. The OP denied the allegation levelled against them. According to the OP, if the Complainant disputed the bill amount, he could have lodged the complaint with the Grievance Redressal Officer or the Central Grievance Redressal Officer of the OP and thereafter to Ombudsman in appeal but without doing so, Complainant right way approached this Forum bypassing the statutory mechanism provided for that. So, the OP prayed for dismissal of the instant complaint.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the Complainant a Consumer as per provision under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?
- Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops as alleged by the Complainant?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get any relief/reliefs, as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point No.1 and 2.
The Complainant submitted that he is a customer of the OP and he used to make payment of electric bills regularly on receipt of bill from them.
On going through the written complaint, w/v, evidence and documents furnished by both sides, and on a careful consideration, we find that that the Complainant is a “consumer” in accordance with the definition of the term as per Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The Complainant submitted that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and the claimed amount is also within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum. On a careful consideration over the matter, we are of the view that this Forum has both territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
Point No.3 and 4.
On behalf of the Complainant, it has been argued that Complainant has shown the monthly amount of bill, which was raised and paid by him for his house since December, 2013 to October, 2018 and informed that a bill of such a hefty amount of Rs.9,553/- has been raised for the period from September, 2016 to November, 2016. It is further submitted that only the caretaker resides in that house and Complainant visits occasionally for about 10 years and there is reason for consumption of electricity for such a hefty amount. Not only that, it is argued that despite being given repeated letters, the OP did not do anything.
On the other hand, on behalf of the OP, it has been argued that the amount of the bill has already been paid before this case was started. The said bill was raised on the spot on going through the Meter reading. That apart, much emphasis has been given on behalf of the OP that Complainant bypassed the statutory mechanism of the OP for redressal of grievance. In support of the said contention on behalf of the OP, one decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India- M/s Rajkumar Dyeing & Printing Works –vs- N.M. Banka and another decision of Hon’ble State Commission, West Bengal have been cited. In the said decision, Hon’ble Supreme Court observed:
“When the consumer approached the Court, the Court should have declined to intervene in the matter and should have directed the consumer to avail of the statutory remedy.”
Similar view was also taken by Hon’ble State Commission, West Bengal.
From the Notification No.55 of West Bengal Electricity Commission produced on behalf of OP, it is found that in Point No.3.5.1, it has been provided that-
“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 months.
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.”
From the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that, for the settlement of dispute regarding bill amount, statutory mechanism has been there.
Though the Complainant is found to have made repeated correspondences with the OP besides paying the amount of bill under protest, he did not prefer to lodge complaint with the Grievance Redressal Officer of the OP for settlement of his dispute.
Now, following the decisions referred to by the Complainant and following the statutory provision, we are of the view that the Complainant should have approached or ought to have approached the proper forum for his redressal. That being so, we hold that the instant complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Hence,
It is ordered,
That the instant case be and the same is dismissed on contest.
Let plain copy of this Order be supplied to the parties concerned by hand/by Post forthwith, free of cost for information & necessary action, if any. The copy of the Final Order will also be available in the official Website: confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me.
