Date of filing : 11.11.2014
Date of S/R : 19.01.2014
Date of Order : 10.12.2015
REFCON CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD.
represented by its Director,
Bijoy Kumar De,
son of Sri Satya Ranjan Dey,
Village & P.O. Lakshmanpur,
District-Howrah……………………………………………………………………… ………………….Complainant.
Vs.
1) The Station Superintendent,
West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd.,
Jagadishpur CCC, Jagadishpur Hat, P.O.-Jagadishpur Hat,
P.S. Liluah, District-Howrah-711328……………………………………….………………………………………………O.P.
P R E S E N T
Hon’ble President : Shri B. D. Nanda, M.A. ( double ), L.L.M., WBHJS.
Hon’ble Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
Hon’ble Member : Shri A.K. Pathak.
F I N A LO R D E R
This is an application U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, filed by the Petitioner, Refcon Consultant Pvt. Ltd. represented by Director, Bijoyt Kr. Dey against the O.P.s, Station Superintendent, WBSEDCL, Jogadishpur CCC praying for direction upon the O.P. to check the alleged bills for the months of July,14 to Sept,. 2014 and rectify the said bill and to pay compensation of Rs. 5000/-.
The case of the petitioner is that he is a consumer under the O.P. having electric connection number LKP/6378 with consumer I.D. No. 132145627 and consumer No. A078990. The O.P. issued an electric bill in the name of petitioner for the months of July,14 to Sept.,2014 amounting to Rs. 22,200/- showing consumption of 2475 units. His previous reading was 2742 and the present reading recorded 5217 units which was never consumed by him. Previously he used to get normal bill and receiving this bill he raised objection by sending letter dated 20.10.2014 asking O.P. to rectify the bill which was unjust and illegal but the O.P. denied to do the same and so the petitioner filed this case.
The O.P. contested the case for filing a written version denying the allegation made in the petition and submitted that the case is not maintainable. The O.P. submitted that it was 3 phase commercial connection effected on 15.12.2009 with zero reading in the meter and in 3 quarters the consumption showing 80 units, 90 units and 150 units respectively and the bills were sent as access to the meter board was not available. The actual physical reading took place on 10.07.2014 and it was found that 2475 units was accumulated and thus the bill for the month of July,2014 amounted to Rs. 22,200/- giving all adjustment. The subsequent bill for the month of October14 to December,14 326 units. There was no negligence on the part of the O.P. and the O.P. cannot review the bill. The case against petitioner be dismissed.
On the above cases of the parties the following issues are frame :
- Whether the case maintainable in the present form ?
- Whether the petitioner has any cause of action to file the case ?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. ?
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for ?
Decision with reason :
All this issues are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity of discussion and to skip of reiteration . In support of his case the petitioner Sri Bijoy Kumar Dey, filed affidavit in chief along with documents showing payment of previous bills wherein the consumption of units were 90, 80 and so on but the bill for the month of July, to Sept., showing consumption 2475 units and the amount went upto 22,200/- . This Forum heard the counsel of the both sides on the above case and on scrutiny of the petition as well as the W/V and documents, finds that in the alleged bill the bill amount was a few time more than the previous one. In the instant case the petitioner has not alleged that the meter is a defective one but he raised objection against the bill only . Ld. Counsel from the WBSEDCL submitted that in the case of defective meter or excessive bill the consumer has to approach the proper forum i.e. the Chief Electrical Inspector, as laid down 26/6 of the Indian Electrical Act,2010 and this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain such a case and there is no deficiency in service also on the part of the WBSEDCL as the decision of the Electrical Inspector is final. This Forum kept in mind, the submission of the Ld. Counsels of the both sides and also the cases of the parties and the documents filed by them and the present position of law laid down by our Supreme Court and it is notice that our Supreme court in the case of CESC Ltd. Vs. Shri N.M. Banka and others , Categorically opined that the Consumer Forum cannot entertain Electricity bill disputes as per the provision of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. Our Appex court observed that the correct course of action for a consumer with a disputes of the correctness of the bill or electricity meter, the consumer would apply to the electrical Inspector designated under the Indian electricity Act. In the instant case the petitioner has not adopted as the correct course of action and instead he had chosen to approach the District Forum , which has no jurisdiction. Our National Commission in the case of Biswas Nath Mujkherjee Vs. WBSEB and Other opined in the same tune that the consumer Forum cannot entertain electricity bill dispute.
In view of above discussion and findings the case of the petitioner fails .
Court fees paid is correct.
Hence,
Ordered,
That the CC 571/2014 be and the same is dismissed on contest without cost.
Supply the copy of the order to the parties free of cost.
Dictated and corrected
by me.
( B. D. Nanda)
President, C.D.R.F. Howrah.
