The instant appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) is at the behest of complainant Shri Asish Kumar Santra to impeach the final order/judgment dated 8^th December, 2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Paschim Medinipur (in short, ‘Ld. District Forum’) in Consumer Complaint No. 64 of 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 a complaint before the Ld. District Forum asserting that being a resident of Vill.- Natuk, P.S.- Ghatal, Paschim Medinipur, in order to cultivate his land installed one mini deep tube well and obtained electric connection being Consumer Id No. 213158356 from the West Bengal State Electricity Company Limited (W.B.S.E.D.C.L.) on 19.12.2007. The complainant has stated that he was paying the bills regularly but due to illness could not deposit the amount of Rs. 68,481/- by way of instalments. However, he deposited Rs. 64,000/- and an amount of Rs. 4,481/- was due and payable by him. When he visited the office of W.B.S.E.D.C.L. to make payment of balance amount of Rs. 4,481/-, he came to know that at present Rs. 1,62,653/- is still unpaid by the complainant. According to the complainant the said computer generated bill of Rs. 1,62,653/- is illegal and not in conformity with the energy consumed by him. In this regard, all his requests to verify the meter through an expert went in vain. Hence, the appellant approached the Ld. District Forum on the allegation of deficiency in services on the part of W.B.S.E.D.C.L. with prayer for several reliefs, viz.- (a) to direct the opposite party to verify the meter through an expert Engineer as per the Electricity Act; (b) to direct the opposite party not to disconnect the electric connection etc.

The respondent being opposite party by filing written version has stated that there was no defect in the meter and just to avoid to pay the billed amount, this case has been filed falsely.

On evaluation of the materials on record, the Ld. District Forum by the impugned judgment/final order dismissed the complaint. To assail the said order, the complainant has come up in this Commission with the present appeal.

Having heard the Ld. Advocates appearing for the parties and on perusal of the materials on record, it would reveal that the respondent being resident of Vill.- Natuk, P.S.- Ghatal, Dist.- Paschim Medinipur has obtained an electric connection from the W.B.S.E.D.C.L. being Consumer ID No. 213158356 for the purpose of smooth cultivation for running one mini deep tube well. Evidently, the complainant did not deposit the electricity bill from the month of January, 2016 for which one electricity bill of Rs. 68,481/- was raised. The appellant has paid Rs. 64,000/- on diverse dates against such bill and a sum of Rs. 4,481/- was due and payable by the appellant. In any case, a subsequent bill of Rs. 1,62,653/- was generated by the licensing authority, which according to the appellant is an illegal one.

          The pleading of the parties and the materials on record clearly manifest that the dispute is apparently a billing dispute. For appreciation of the situation, it would be worthwhile to refer Clause 3.5 of Notification No. 55 of West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission published in Kolkata Gazette (Extra-Ordinary) dated 7^th August, 2013 appears to be relevant which 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: -

1. an amount equal to the sum claimed from him in the disputed bill, or
2. 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 agreed 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 aforesaid provisions of Clause 3.5 of Notification No. 55/W.B.E.R.C. dated 7^th August, 2013 flows from the Electricity Act, 2003 and as such it has a statutory force. Needless to say, if the law prescribes to do something in a particular way or in a particular manner, it should be done with the intention of legislature and a Court/Forum has no authority to bypass such legislative command. When with reference to the letter of respondent/complainant dated 08.06.2016 a reply was given by the Assistant Engineer/Station Manager of the concerned Customer Care Centre on 14.06.2016 that after replacing another meter it was found that the disputed meter was in good running condition, the only option of the respondent/complainant was to approach to the RGRO or CGRO or Ombudsman, as the case may be for ventilating his grievances, if any.

I am not unmindful to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2013) 8 SCC 491 [U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. –Vs. – Anis Ahmed] that 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. However, there is no machinery before the Forum constituted under the Act to ascertain as to whether the meter in question was defective or not.  There is no evidence whatsoever to indicate that the respondent has any ‘hostile animus’ or animosity with any employee/staff of W.B.S.E.D.C.L for which an inflated bill had been raised. Therefore, in order to contradict the assessment of the licensing authority, the respondent should have invoked Clause 3.5 by lodging a complaint before the appropriate authority.

In any case, the record reveals that vide Order No. 07 dated 12.07.2017 the Ld. District Forum directed the respondent to install a check meter in the premises of the appellant and the appellant was directed to co - operate with the officers of respondent in such installation of the check meter. Subsequently, a report was filed from where no defect was found in the meter in question. Therefore, as there was no deficiency in services on the part of licensing authority, the Ld. District Forum was quite justified in dismissing the complaint. Therefore, the appeal being meritless one deserves dismissal.

Consequently, the appeal is dismissed on contest. However, there will be no order as to costs.

The final order/judgment dated 08.12.2017 passed by the Ld. District Forum in CC/64 of 2017 is hereby affirmed.

The Registrar of the Commission is directed to send a copy of the order to the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Paschim Medinipur for information.