Challenge in this Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) is at the instance of Complainant Sri Rajib Dhole to impeach the Judgement/Final Order dated 03.08.2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South 24 Parganas at Baruipur (in short, Ld. District Forum) in Consumer Complaint No. 80/2017 whereby the complaint lodged by the Appellant under Section 12 of the Act was dismissed on contest without any order as to costs.
The Appellant herein being Complainant lodged the complaint before the Ld. District Forum asserting that being a resident of Village Hariharpur, P.S.- Sonarpur, Dist South 24 Parganas, he has an electric connection being Consumer ID. No.113010386 and on going on paying the bills regularly. However, he was astonished to see that from 29.06.2016 to 10.01.2017 the meter reading unit was enhanced from 8301 to 17492 units i.e. total consumption was 9191units. The complainant has stated that in between 18.10.2014 and 29.09.2016 the meter reading was from 6189 to 8310 units which means total 2112 units consumed by him. The complainant has stated that he lodged a written complaint on 17.06.2017 but no fruitful result has come out. Hence, the respondent approached the Ld. District Forum with prayer for following reliefs, viz. – (a) to direct the OP to look into the matter for illegal demand of bill amounting to Rs.97,878/- for three months; (b) compensation of Rs.50,000/- and (c) litigation cost of Rs.20,000/-.
The Respondent being Opposite Party by filing a written version has stated that they received the complaint on 17.06.2017 and on scrutiny, it was found that there were previous accumulation of unbilled units. The OP has also stated that after receiving the complaint, they have installed a check meter and it was found that the energy meter installed in the premises is correct.
After assessing the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties and other materials on record, the Ld. District Forum by the impugned order dismissed the complaint. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, the complainant has come up in this Commission with the present appeal.
I have heard the Ld. Advocates appearing for the parties and scrutinised the materials on the record.
Undisputedly, the Appellant being a resident of Village- Hariharpur, P.O.- Mallickpur, P.S.- Sonarpur, Dist- South 24 Parganas has installed one electric connection being Consumer ID. No.113010386 from WBSEDCL. He has lodged the complaint simply on the ground that the meter reading for the period from 29.09.2016 to 10.01.2017 enhanced from 8301 to 17492 i.e. 9191 units was exorbitant. The appellant in the petition of complaint did not make any prayer for examination of meter in question. On the contrary, the respondent has categorically stated that after receiving the complaint, they have installed a check meter and subsequently, it was found that the energy meter installed in the said premises is genuine.
It is now well settled that in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2013) 8 SCC 491[U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. –Vs. – Anis Ahmed] the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 runs parallel for giving redressal to any person, who falls within the meaning of ‘consumer’ as defined in Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act but it is limited to the dispute relating to ‘unfair trade practice’ or a ‘restrictive trade practice’ adopted by the service provider or if the ‘consumer’ suffers from deficiency in service or hazardous service or the service provider has charged a price in excess of the price fixed by or under any law.
Now, the Regulation No.3.5 of West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission published in Kolkata Gazette (Extra-Ordinary) dated 07.08.2013 being notification No. 55, which has a statutory effect provides –
“3.5.1(a) – In case, there is any dispute in respect of the billed amount, the consumer may lodged 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: -
- 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 of electricity paid by him during the preceding 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”.
The Ld. District Forum has observed that the disputed bill is prepared on meter reading of existing meter of the complainant and there is nothing wrong in the preparation of the said bill and the said bill can never be called an inflated bill and it has been prepared by OP keeping with the energy consumed by the complainant during that period. The appellant in order to prove the alleged deficiency on the part of the respondent could have made a prayer for appointment of an expert to determine the correctness of meter in question.
Therefore, the Ld. District Forum was quite justified in dismissing the complaint. In other words, when the Regulation has a statutory force, the appellant had/has ample opportunity to avail the said procedure as prescribed in Regulation No.3.5 under the Head ‘Payment of disputed bills’.
As the impugned order is a reasoned one, there is hardly any reason to interfere with impugned order.
For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is dismissed on contest. However, there will be no order as to costs.
The Final Order/Judgement dated 03.08.2018 passed by the Ld. District Forum in CC/80/2017 is hereby affirmed.
The Registrar of this Commission is directed to send a copy of the order to the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South 24 Parganas at Baruipur for information.
