Case No. CC/ 14/2019
FINAL ORDER/JUDGMENT
Sudeb Mitra, President:-
The epitome of the complaint case is that the complt. had a Submersible pump in his own land for his livelihood. The meter no and consumer ID no of the complt. is RSX615608N, RSX615608P, RSX6156080 O and 200440101 respectively. It is the complt’s specific assertion that he is the bonafide consumer of Electricity and he had regularly paid monthly electric bill on regular basis and his last given electric bill is till the month of March 2015.
It is contended by the complt. that from April 2015, O.P. didn’t issue any bill to the complt. Later on 22.04.2015 the meter reader issued an electric bill of abnormal number of units and on objection to it, the meter reader admitted this mistake & assured the complt. that fresh electric bill will be issued, after due rectification.
It is the specific case of the complt. that on 23.09.2016, the meter of the complt’s submersible pump was burnt and the complt. informed the O.P. side & local P.S. The O.P. no 1 didn’t respond to his prayer for exchanging the damaged meter of the pump by a replaced new one but his submissions were not entertained by the O.P. no 1. Being dissatisfied with the attitude of the O.P. no 1, the complt. had made a written representation to the ‘Regional Grievance Redressal Officer of W.B.S.E.D.C.L.’ Paschim Medinipur.
This is pressed by the complt. in his complaint filed that hearing the complt. & the O.P. no 1, the R.G.R.O. vide the order dtd. 13.02.2018 advised the O.P. no 1 to issue regenerated bills up to 23.09.2016 and advised the O.P. no 1 further that the complt. should be allowed six installments to pay up the amount of the regenerated bill and to pay the cost of the replacement of the burnt meter.
It is the specific contention of the complainant that though the R.G.R.O’s instant direction were intimated to the complt. who persuaded the O.P. no 1 with a request to comply the direction of the R.G.R.O. but the O.P. no 1 hadn’t complied with the instructions of the R.G.R.O. It is pressed by the complt. that the service of the O.P. no 1 was totally dissatisfactory & it inflicted huge monetary loss to the complainant. So by filing the instant complaint the complt. has prayed for reliefs as stated in the prayer portion of the instant complaint.
Contd…3
-3-
The O.Ps have filed W.V. denied all the material allegations as averred in the complaint and contended inter alia that there was no occurrence of absurd meter reading in respect of his submersible pump and the claim of the complainant on that score is baseless.
The O.Ps have contended by filing W.V. further that the bills, in respect of use of electrical energy form the O.P. to run the complt’s submersible pump, were correct and allegation of the complainant on that score was baseless.
The O.Ps have also contended by filing W.V. in this complaint that there was no report of any problem before the happening of the alleged incident of burning out of the submersible pump meter and for the first time on 08.11.2016, complt. had raised question about unfair meter reading.
It is the specific case of the O.Ps that on 16.02.2017 O.P. had served notice to the complt. to complete his meter room’s wiring & to pay the outstanding dues & meter cost. To avoid that responsibility the complt. had made the story as alleged in the complaint. The O.Ps have asserted by filing W.V. that the complt. had not carried out the instruction of Regional Grievances Redressal Officer to pay up the meter cost, though the O.Ps have carried out the instruction of the concerned authority & permitted six installments to the complt. to pay up his areas electricity consumption bills by regenerating such bills as per instruction of the R.G.R.O, W.B.S.E.D.C.L.
This is contended by the O.P. by filing this W.V. that in order to avoid the making of payment of dues of Rs- 27,958/- prepared on regenerated bills prepared by the O.P., the complt. has filed the complaint which deserves to be dismissed since the complt. is not entitled to the reliefs as prayed for in the complaint.
The complt. had filed Xerox copy of the order of the R.G.R.O. dtd. 13.02.2018, Xerox copies of his complaint to the O.P. dtd. 24.09.2016 about the burning out of the meter board of submersible pump together with main switch, starter of the same, Xerox copy of his complaint lodged on this score to I.C. Danton P.S. dtd. 24.09.2016 and the O.Ps, on the other hand, submitted Xerox copies of electric bills vide billing date 22.04.2015, 05.07.2016, Xerox copies of the complt’s lodged complaint over the occurrence to Danton P.S. & to the Station Manger of the O.Ps at Danton, Xerox copy of the reasoned order dtd. 26.02.2018 passed by R.G.R.O. (Divisional Engineer) & Xerox copy of bill dtd. 01.02.2019 for payment of Rs- 25,772.31/- for April 2015 to June 2016.
Contd…4
-4-
Having regard to the materials on record and the submissions of both sides, especially the Ld. Counsel for the O.Ps, we find that before dealing with any other pertinent issues to decide the bone of contention involved in the complaint case, we have first to determine whether this consumer Forum/Commission has jurisdiction at this stage of the proceeding of this complaint to deal with or decide the crux of the problems of this complaint/issues.
Therefore the first issue, so framed for determination, is reflected below.
ISSUES / POINTS FOR DETERMINATION
Whether/Has this Commission/Forum jurisdiction at present, having regard to the materials on record and steps taken by the complaint for the redressal of his complaint involved in this complaint case.
DECISION WITH REASONS
Ld. Counsel for the O.P. while advancing it’s argument in this case on behalf of the O.P. has referred Sec 42 of the Electricity Act 2003 along with Electricity rules of 2005 and relevant notification and regulations of the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission no 55/W.B.E.R.C, Kolkata dtd. 7th August 2013 and has specifically contended that in view of the scopes, ambit and extent of the above referred provisions, as the complt. had taken the recourse of appearing and approaching before the R.G.R.O. i.e. Regional Grievance Redressal Officer, W.B.S.E.D.C.L, for seeking redressal of his complaint arising out of the burning down of the electric meter of his submersible pump, so he(the complainant of this case) ought to have taken the step to move before the higher Forum, as contemplated and determined in the Electricity Act, rules and regulations, as mentioned above, had he been dissatisfied with the direction/reasoned order passed by the R.G.R.O.(Paschim Medinipur) W.B.S.E.D.C.L in respect of his complaint and as he had not availed himself of that scope and switched over to this Forum/Commission and preferred his complaint for redressal before this Commission/Forum, so at this stage, in consonance with the scopes of Sec 42 of the Electricity Act of 2003, besides the regulations, as referred above, this Commission at present, lacks the jurisdiction/status to deal with this complaint case.
Ld. Counsel for the complainant has, to resist the instant argument of the O.Ps, contended per contra, that the complt. was the consumer of the W.B.S.E.D.C.L, and he comes under the preview of the definition ‘Consumer’ in this complaint as per scopes of the C.P. Act of 1986 and 2019 and for that reason against the administrative order of the R.G.R.O. of the W.B.S.E.D.C.L, Paschim Medinipur, he has moved before this judicial forum for seeking redressal specially when the direction of the R.G.R.O, Paschim Medinipur dtd. 13.02.2018 and 26.02.2018 has not been carried out by the O.P. no 1 of this complaint case, filed by him.
Undisputedly the complainant of this case is a ‘consumer’ under the W.B.S.E.D.C.L having specific consumer number and meter number provided to the complainant as it appears from the case record.
Contd…5
-5-
It is now well settled in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2013) 8 Sec 491(U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & others Vs Anis Ahmed) that the Electricity Act 2003, C.P. Act of 1986 runs paralled for giving redressal to any persons who falls within the meaning of consumer as defined in Sec 2(i)(d)(ii) of the Act but it is limited to the dispute relating to ‘Unfair Trade Practice’ or a ‘Restrictive Trade Practice’ adopted by the service provider or if the ‘Consumer’ suffers from deficiency in service or hazardous service or the service provider has charged a price in excess of the price fixed by or under any law.
Here in this case the complt. had gone and sought redressal of his grievance firstly to the R.G.R.O. and obtained specific order. Accordingly, the scope of the complt. becomes minimized in consonance with the force, ambit, extent of Sec42(5) and 42(6) of the Electricity Act of 2003 and he would be governed according to the scopes of these two provisions of the Sec 42 of the Electricity Act 2003. It is needless to reiterate this Act has statutory force. When a legislation in its wisdom conferred some power to a particular authority, usually a court of law should restrain to interfere with the same. When there has been a prescribed procedure, the complt. has/had ample opportunity to avail himself of the procedure prescribed therein.
Here in this case since there was/has been prescribed procedure and appropriate authority in the form of Ombudsman as per Sec 42(6) of the Electricity Act of 2003 to seek redressal of the grievances of the complt. against the findings of the R.G.R.O. than the complt. should have to move as per scopes of Sec 42(6) of the Act of 2003 against the findings of the R.G.R.O., Paschim Medinipur, dtd. 26.02.2018 and not before this Forum/Commission.
Besides it is relevant to mention that the complt. has not produced any substantive documents to establish that he had complied with the direction of the R.G.R.O. dtd. 26.02.2018 in paying up the outstanding dues in six installments as advised though there remains adequate reason supported by relevant electric bills to hold that the relevant bills as per advice of the R.G.R.O. was regenerated to facilitate the complt. to pay up his arrear dues in six installments, the complt. couldn’t show that he had taken the scopes of installments payments of his arrear dues or he had taken the recourse of regulation no 3.5.1 or 3.5.2 of the notification no 55/W.B.E.R.C dtd. 07.08.2013.
Considering all these as discussed above, we find that the subject matter in issue in this complaint case is not amenable before this Forum/Commission.
In this premises, this Forum/Commission can’t at this stage deal with or decide the crux of the problems involved in this complaint, having regard to it’s background.
Accordingly, the complaint case fails. In this circumstances we can’t have the scope to frame or discuss any other issue in this complaint case.
Hence it is…
Contd…6
-6-
ORDERED
That this complaint case be & the same is dismissed on contest but without cost.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied to the contesting parties of this complaint case, by hand/ by Regd. Post with A/D forthwith, free of cost, for information and necessary action, as per law & relevant rules.
Member Member President
District Commission
Paschim Medinipur
