Today is fixed for admission hearing.

Attendance through Ld. Advocate on behalf of the complainant is submitted.

Ld. Advocate for the complainant moved the application under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and refer the document and prays for admission of the instant case.

The case of the complainant is that he is a bona fide consumer under the O.Ps and his electricity consumption was Rs.600/- - Rs.700/- per quarter and he paid the charges by the time. But all of a sudden in the month of June 2019 a bill amounting to Rs.17,508/- was sent to the complainant against which he submits written objection and requested to issue bill after checking his meter, and the O.Ps gave him meter reading statement showing remarks “meter defective”. For sending the bill of said huge amount he will face loss and thus cause of action arose from the date of said bill dated 03.06.2019, amounting to Rs.17,508/-. He prays for correction of consumed unit and injunction for non disconnection till hearing.

Admittedly the complainant is a consumer under O.Ps vide consumer I.D 432041819. The complainant’s case is that the staff of O.Ps cheacked the meter and give remarks about physical position, as shown in meter reading statement and cause of action arose on 03.06.2019 when bill of Rs.17,508/- was issued to the complainant and thereafter, day by day.

Having heard Ld. Advocate for the complainant and on perusal of the complaint petition and materials on record and as admitted by Ld. Advocate of the complainant the dispute is apparently a billing dispute.

Under the provisions of Clause 3.5 of Notification No. 55/W.B.E.R.C dated 7^th August, 2013 the District Commission should not have entertained the complaint as there was specific provision to ventilate the grievances before the Regional Grievances Redressal Officer or Central Grievances Redressal Officer or to an Ombudsman, as the case may be.

The complainant without invoking the Clause 3.5 mentioned above lodged this case for getting redressal, which is premature in our considered view.

Hence, it is

O r d e r e d

That the case number CC-28/22 be and the same is rejected in terms of the observation made above under provision of Section 36 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Let a copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.