IMPORTANT POINT
Jurisdiction – Consumer forums lack jurisdiction to entertain complaints specifically challenging the final “assessment” of electricity bills under the Electricity Act, 2003, as such disputes do not constitute “deficiency in service” or “unfair trade practice” triable under the Consumer Protection Act.

JUDGMENT

Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, President.—The facts of the case as per the District Commission record are as under:—

“Allegations made in the complaint are that when the OP Issued an illegal bill for a sum of Rs.5,37,670/- in respect of old K.No.IRP7031261236, New No.2551L3064274 he filed a Civil Suit No.82/05 against the OPs wherein the disconnection of the connection was stayed subject to his depositing 50% of the bill amount and though he deposited Rs.2,69,000/- in four installments provisionally, however, the OPs never issued the correct bill. The OPs approached the Complainant for out of court settlement in terms of letter dated 27.09.2007. The Complainant entered into a settlement with the OPs on 15.10.2017 whereby the misuse was to be withdrawn, charges on domestic rates were to be levied without LPSC Compromise was recorded in the Civil Suit and was withdrawn. However, the OPs did not honour the out of Court settlement. OP No.2 sent a letter dated 15.11.2007 to the Complainant therein raising a whopping demand of Rs.5,16,334/- which included arrears and late payment surcharge which amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Instead of correcting the bill the OPs sent a letter dated 04.03.2008 thereby threatening to disconnect the electricity of the premises of the Complainant. When the OP did not take any action legal notice dated 24.03.2008 was got sent to them through advocate. Even thereafter the OPs made efforts to disconnect the supply to his house. Hence, the present complaint has been filed for issuing directions to the OPs to draw the true and correct bill as per the terms of settlement dated 15.10.2007, to give credit of the amount of Rs.2,69,000/- already deposited by the Complainant with OPs to pay a sum of Rs.75,000/- for harassment and mental agony caused to the complainant and cost of litigation.

In the written statement the OPs have inter-alla stated as follows:-

“That the complainant has made payment of Rs.2,73,000/-which has already been adjusted on complainant account. It is further stated that as per out of court settlement dated 15.10.2007 at the office of AGM(B), South Adchini, New Delhi the OP has already revised the bill and after adjustment of all the payment made by the complainant during the period 05.03.95 to 01.02.2008 and entire late payment surcharges has been withdrawn. It is pertinent to mention here that after revision of the bill net payable amount comes to Rs.3,13,790.00 up to 01.02.2008. The revised electricity bill is enclosed herewith as Annexure-A.

Denying any deficiency on their part the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.”

2. The District Commission after taking into consideration the material available on record passed the order dated 06.05.2017, whereby it held as under:

“We have heard the oral arguments advanced at the bar and have also gone very carefully through the record.

According to Complainant copy of the bill dated 15.11.2007 for an amount of Rs.5,16,334/- is Exhibit C/4 (not marked Exhibit No. on the documents). We mark it as mark “BB” for the purposes of identification. According to the OPs the bill has been revised and now an amount of Rs.3,13,790/- up to 01.02.2008 is due to be paid by the complainant. Copy is placed on the record and we mark it as mark “AA” for the purpose of identification. In the affidavit the Complainant has inter-alia stated that the OPs have not been giving the details of waiving of LPSC, misuse withdrawal and charged him on domestic rate and have taken out hypothetical Um of Rs.3,13,790/- without any details. Thus the OPs have in fact revised the bill from Rs.5,16,334/- to Rs.3,13,790/-. If the complainant has still any grievance against the revised bill he should take appropriate civil action against the OPs and the consumer complaint is not maintainable. Hence, we hold that the complainant has failed to prove that the OPs have committed any deficiency in service.

In view of the above discussion, we do