KUNDAN KUMAR KUMAI

This is an appeal u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, preferred against the Order dated 15/01/2020 passed by the Ld. DCDRF, Malda, in BF Case No.35/2016.

Brief fact of the Appellant’s Case is that, the Appellant is a customer of the Respondent/WBSEDCL under Tariff Class B (I-R) having Consumer Id No. 342248395. The Appellant last paid the Bill on 08/09/2015, but after that none appeared to read the Meter of the Appellant, but the Respondent/OP No.3 sent a Bill dated 16/02/2016, showing consumption of Units as 20052, amounting to Rs.1,65,571/- (Rupees one lakh sixty-five thousand five hundred seventy-one) only, within due date and Rs.1,67,059/- (Rupees one lakh sixty-seven thousand fifty-nine) only, after due date. The Appellant had not consumed the above-mentioned Units, and as such sent a Legal Notice dated 27/04/2016 to the Respondent/OP No.3, but there was no response. Finding no alternative, the Appellant lodged the complaint before the Ld. DCDRF, Malda with necessary prayers.

The Respondents appeared to contest the claim by filing written version wherein they denied the Appellant’s Case and stated that the bills had been prepared online and prayed for dismissal of the claim.

After going through the evidence on record the Ld. DCDRF, Malda passed the impugned order dismissing the Case on contest.

Being aggrieved by the above order, the instant appeal was preferred on the ground that the Ld. DCDRF, Malda, had erred in law and facts while passing the impugned order.

                                                  Decisions with Reasons

Ld. Advocate for the Appellant at the time of final hearing, had submitted that the Appellant had lastly paid electric bill on 08/09/2015 and thereafter no reading had been done and all of a sudden, he received a bill amounting to Rs.1,65,571/- (Rupees one lakh sixty-five thousand five hundred seventy-one) only, showing consumption of 20052 Units. Thereafter, the Ld. Forum below had dismissed the case on the ground, that it was not empowered to adjudicate, thereby holding that the Case was not maintainable, but the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3581-3590 of 2020 held on 02/11/2020, that the Consumer Forums were empowered to deal with all types of complaints in view of the existence Section 3 and Section 100 in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, respectively.

Ld. Advocate on behalf of the Respondent, on the other hand, had countered, that the impugned judgement had been rightly passed.

Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 lays down that the provisions of this Act, should be in addition to and not be in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force, meaning that the Consumer Protection Act, would prevail if the consumer intended to avail the protection of this law even if other specific enactments were available to him. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the conflict with the RERA Law emphasized the above principle, while passing the judgement in Civil Appeal No.3581-3590 of 2020, on 02/11/2020.

Therefore, in view of the above observation the Ld. DCDRF, Malda appears to have formed an erroneous view, while passing the impugned order and dismissed the complaint without going into the merits of the complaint. Thus, this appeal is a fit Case, to send back on remand, for a fresh judgement on merits, after allowing both the sides to adduce evidence, if any.

As a result, the instant appeal succeeds.

                                                    It is therefore

                                                   ORDERED

That the instant appeal be and the same is allowed on contest, but without cost.

The impugned order is hereby set aside.

The appeal is sent on remand for a fresh judgement, with directions mentioned in the body of the judgement.

Copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost.

Copy of this order be sent to the Ld. DCDRF, Malda for necessary action.