Hon'ble Mrs. Rumpa Mandal, Member.
The 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 of domestic electric connection in his premises vide consumer ID No. 400482317 which was installed by OP on 30.02.15 for which OP issued Meter Card No.1271882. The main allegation against the OP regarding the electric bill for the month of September, 2017 amounting to Rs.36,876/- with consumption unit 3727 for only one month and thereafter in the year 2017 OP disconnected the electric connection due to nonpayment of electric bill. Complainant lodged a written complaint for correction of bill. According to him, the amount of the said bill was quite absurd and unrealistic. Thus, the Complainant having aggrieved, approached this Ld. Commission seeking several relief(s).
The OP contested this case by filing their W/V, evidence on affidavit and written argument along with two citations. According to OP, Complainant is a consumer of W.B.S.E.D.C.L. vide category A(DM-R) i.e. domestic rural and his premises was electrified by the Rural Electrification wings of W.B.S.E.D.C.L. and R.E. wing of OP is the authority for maintenance and billing of the said connection. OP argued that until and unless the RE wings handed over the Master Card to the respective Station Manager in respect of the connection, it was not possible for respective Station Manager to know the where abouts relating to the new connection and unable to raise the bill prior to September, 2015. The OP also stated that regarding the bill dated 28.07.17 Complainant also submitted written request to this OP. Considering the prayer of the Complainant, OP regenerated the bill and prepared the bill dated 30.11.17. This bill was rectified by the O.P for Rs.21,556/- instead of bill of Rs.36,876/- dated 28.07.2017. But the Complainant did not pay the said rectified bill as such his (complaint) electric connection was disconnected by this O.P on 26.12.2017. Complainant had submitted written request to this O.P for change of his meter. But no response was given by the O.P because the meter of the Complainant was in good condition as claimed by the OP. The OP argued that 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 Commission bypassing the statutory mechanism provided for that.
The Ld. Advocate appeared for the OP submitted that the present case being related to bill dispute and on the other hand the Ld. Advocate on behalf of the Complainant prayed before this Ld. Commission to pass an order to direct the OP to issue fresh bill in place of bill dated 28.07.17. So the Ld. Advocate for the OP argued that this complaint petition cannot be entertained in this Commission.
POINT FOR CONSIDERATION
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get any relief/reliefs as prayed ?
FINDINGS
The Complainant approached this Forum/ Commission seeking relief(s) as prayed for.
This bill was rectified by the O.P for Rs.21,556/- instead of bill of Rs.36,876/- dated 28.07.2017. But the Complainant did not pay the said rectified bill as such his (complaint) electric connection was disconnected by this O.P on 26.12.2017. Complainant had submitted written request to this O.P for change of his meter. But no response was given by the O.P because the meter of the Complainant was in good condition as claimed by the O.P.
On going through the materials on record and conditions of the parties it is found that the Complainant raised dispute regarding the bill dated 28.07.2017 which is amounted to Rs.36,876/-. During argument, the Ld. Advocate appeared for the O.P submitted that he regenerated the bill amounting to Rs.21,556/- instead of the bill of Rs.36,876/- dated 28.07.2017 but the unit consumption is same i.e. 3727. Thus there is a difference of Rs. 15,320/- which the consumer was supposed to avail of the benefit given by the OP. But without availing the benefit he files the case before this Commission to redress his grievance by letting the OP issue new bill. Thus it is proved that it is a case of bill dispute.
In support of the said contention on behalf of the OP, one decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Limited V/S N.M. Bank and another and another decision of Hon’ble Sate Commission west Bengal have been cited. In the said decision, Hon’ble Supreme Court observed.
“ If the Consumer was aggrieved by the bills, he should have approached the Electric Inspector straightaway. 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. In any event, the Court could not have decided about the correctness or otherwise of the bills.”
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(a) 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 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 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. But Complainant did not prefer to lodge complaint with the grievance Redressal Officer of the OP for settlement of his dispute.
Now, following decisions referred to by the OP 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, for the ends of the justice, it is:-
Ordered
That the instant case be and the same is dismissed on contest. No order as to cost.
Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied to the concerned party by hand/by Registered Post with A/D forthwith, free of cost, for information & necessary action as per rule.
The copy of the Final Order also available in the official website: www.confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me.
