Sri Ashoke Kumar Pal, President.

The case of the complainant in short is that the complainant is a consumer of W.B.S.E.D.C.L under Boalia Customer Care Centre, Garia, Kolkata – 700084 being Consumer ID No. 115141436, B.P. No. 4481188, Meter No. – T1802357. The complainant received the bill of January, 2018 and paid the same on 02.02.2018 by cash Rs. 676/- (Annexure – 1). Thereafter, no electricity bill was issued to the complainant for long and suddenly on 02.01.2020 an electricity bill for Rs. 43,082.36 P./- was sent to the complainant. The complainant wrote three letters raising objection on 07.02.2020, 18.02.2020 and 13.03.2020 (Annexure – 2) to the Electricity Office but no reply was received by the complainant from that end. On 06.07.2020 another electricity bill amounting to Rs. 69,279/- was issued to the complainant against which the complainant on 28.08.2020 sent an Advocate’s letter (Annexure – 3) to the Electricity Office but no reply was received from that end. Again on 30.09.2020 the 3^rd inflated bill amounting to Rs. 78,294/- was issued to the complainant against which the complainant again on 19.10.2020 sent an Advocate’s letter raising objection (Annexure – 4). The Electricity Office neither changing the defective meter nor repairing the same as the complainant is dissatisfied with the estimated electric bill without taking any meter reading. As the complainant did not get any positive response from the W.B.S.E.D.C.L., the instant case has been filed on the reliefs sought for in the petition of complaint.

The O.Ps. contested the case by filing W.V. contending inter-alia that the instant case is not maintainable. It is the specific case of the O.Ps. that after receiving the complaint the matter was referred to the Empower Committee of Garia Division which passed an order on 04.01.2021. After receiving the order dated 04.01.2021 the O.Ps. sent a letter to the complainant on 15.01.2021 along with a revised bill of Rs. 14,070/- for the period from 04.10.2019 to 01.10.2020 with a request to pay the bill within 25.01.2021. But the complainant “refused” to receive the said letter. It was further contended that the defective meter being No. T1802357 has been replaced on 04.01.2021 by a new one being No. IPB299729. The complainant did not pay the electric bill for Rs. 14,070/- and subsequent thereto even after replacement of the defective electricity meter. It was further contended that the instant complaint case has been filed in respect of a dispute relating to electricity bill and as such as per Regulation No. 3.5 of Notification No. 55/W.B.E.R.C. dated 07.08.2013 the complainants are required to lodge a complaint before the Grievance Redressal Office (G.R.O.) or Central Grievance Redressal Office (C.G.R.O.) and thereafter before the Ombudsman in appeal, if necessary, so the instant case is not maintainable before this Commission and is liable to be dismissed in limini. The O.Ps. also denied the other material averments of the petition of complaint para wise and prayed for dismissal of the case.      

                                      POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION :

1. Is the instant complaint case maintainable before the Commission?
2. Is the complainant a consumer?
3. Are the O.Ps. guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice?
4. Is the complainant entitled to get the relief as prayed for?

                           DECISIONS WITH REASONS :

Point No. 1:

It is the specific case of the O.Ps. (W.B.S.E.D.C.L.) that the instant case is not maintainable before the Commission as the dispute between the parties is a billing dispute pure and simple. In this connection, Ld. Advocate for the O.Ps. referred Regulation No. 3.5 of Notification No. 55/W.B.E.R.C. dated 07.08.2013 which provides as follows:

“3.5.1 (a) – In case, there is 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, 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:-

1. an amount equal to the sum claimed from him in the disputed bill, or
2. an amount equal to the electricity charges due from him for each month calculated on the basis of average charge of electricity paid by him during the preceeding 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.”

The provisions of Regulation 3.5.2 reads as under :-

“3.5.2 – If any aggrieved consumer makes a provisional payment, as aforesaid, no penal measure including disconnection for non-payment shall be taken against him till the dispute is settled either at the level of the Grievance Redressal Officer or the Central Grievance Redressal Officer or the Ombudsman, as the case may be. However, imposition of a delayed payment, surcharge, if applicable shall not count towards a penal measure for this purpose.”

Here in this case admittedly the complainant did not pay the amount of the bill issued by the licensing authority. On the contrary, the O.Ps. have replaced the defective meter by a new one and a revised electricity bill for the period from 04.10.2019 to 01.10.2020 ( 12 months) amounting to Rs. 14,070/- was sent with request to pay the same by 25.01.2021. But the complainant did not pay the said electricity bill but continued to enjoy the electricity merrily without paying for the  consumption of electricity. The complainant did not take the pain of approaching before the Grievance Redressal Officer or the Central Grievance Redressal Officer or Ombudsman for redressal of his billing dispute. The complainant proceeded in a wrong way to decide the dispute without approaching the appropriate authority in accordance with Notification No. 55/W.B.E.R.C dated 07.08.2013. Therefore, we are of the firm opinion that the instant case is not maintainable before this commission.

Thus, the point No. 1 is decided in favour of the O.Ps. and against the complainant.

Point Nos. 2, 3 & 4:

In respect of these three points we are of the view that when the instant case is not at all maintainable before the Commission as discussed herein before in Point No.1, there is no necessity to enter into the merit of the case as per Point Nos. 2,3 and 4.

In the result, the complaint case fails.

Court fees paid is correct.

Hence, it is

            ORDERED

That the instant Complaint case be and the same is dismissed on contest. Parties will bear their respective cost.

The Complainant is hereby given liberty to approach the appropriate Forum in accordance with Notification No. 55/W.B.E.R.C dated 07.08.2013, if necessary.

Let a copy of the order be sent / supplied free of cost to the parties concerned.

The Final Order will be available in the following website www.confonet.nic.in.

Dictated and corrected by me.

             President