: J U D G M E N T :
This case is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act by Amir Hosen Mallick against Station Manger, Bethuadahari Group Electric Supply office, W.B.S.E.D.C.L. The facts of the case to put in a nutshell, are as below:-
The complainant is a consumer with meter No. S06187. The opposite party has been sending electric bill without taking meter reading. The Station Manger, Bethuadahari Electric office informed this on 01.10.10, 06.07.13, 23.12.13 as abnormal bills are being sent in spite of the produce of the complaint and without actual verification and reading of the meter on 21.08.14 the bill amounting to Rs. 19628/- has been given by the OP in spite of the fact that on 14.05.2010 only 398 units were consumed as per yellow card by the complainant. Hence, the complainant prayed for compensation of Rs.3,000/- with a direction to the OP so that the complainant need not pay the amount as per wrong bills.
The opposite party W.B.S.E.D.C.L. has contested the case by filing written version on 02.04.15 wherein contentions of the complainant have been challenged and denied. At Para- 13 of the written version we find the complainant is even consumer No. S10014 for short tube well connection of 5 HP and paid bill of Rs. 2448 units. The total consumption energy consumed by the complainant is 4525 units and he paid 2348 units i.e., the OP is entitled to get electric energy charges of 2167 units from the complainant. So the OP prays for dismissal of the case.
POINTS FOR DECISION
- Point No. 1: Is the case maintainable?
- Point No. 2: Is the complainant entitled to get any relief?
REASOND DECISIONS
For the purpose of brevity and convenience both the points are taken up together for discussion.
We have meticulously gone through the Annexure – 1 to Annexure – 15 filed by the complainant. We have also perused the evidence along with interrogatories and replies. Brief note of argument has been filed by the Ld. Advocate of the petitioner on 24.08.2015. The complaint filed on 24.04.15 stating that the OP has falsely stated in written version that W.B.S.E.D.C.L. is entitled to get energy charges of 2167 units.
We have heard argument of Ld. Advocates for both sides. Ld. Advocate for the complainant has prayed for reliefs as mentioned in the complaint whereas Ld. Advocate for the W.B.S.E.D.C.L. has prayed dismissal of the case on the ground of non-maintainability of the case.
Section 158 of the Electricity Act, 2003 has been referred by Ld. Advocate for the W.B.S.E.D.C.L. It has been argued with regards to that case law that because of the arbitration clause this case cannot be tried before this Forum.
We have meticulously gone through the decision reported in III (2008) CPJ 76 wherein it has been held that additional remedy under Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is available ‘in addition to’ and ‘not in derogation of’ any other law. It has been held that jurisdiction of the Forum is not barred by arbitration Act or clause.
Ld. Advocate for the opposite party has further argued that this case cannot proceed before this Forum in view of 197 (1) CHN (SC) page 50. In that decision we find the electric inspector has been empowered by the statute to resolve disputes with regard to meter reading and bill dispute.
The consumer should have approach before the electric inspector under Indian Electricity Act, 1910, Sections 26 (4) and 26 (6). The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that when there is special statutory remedy available to the consumer he should not have been allowed to bypass the Electricity Act. In the instant case, the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission has been referred by Ld. Advocate for the OP. This Electricity Regulatory Commission matter was published in the official gazette on 12.09.07. This Regulatory Commission has been empowered to deal with the billing dispute and this Forum has no power to look into the matter and billing disputes.
Hence, we are not inclined to interfere with the statutory mandate and we therefore, hold that the case is not maintainable in this Forum.
Hence,
Ordered,
That, the case CC/2014/163 be and the same is dismissed on contest on maintainability ground. No cost.
Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.
