Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member Present Appeal is directed against the Order dated 31072014 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Murshidabad in C.C. No. 153/2013. Briefly narrated, case of the Complainant before the Ld. District Forum was that after submission of quotation money amounting to Rs. 12,600/, the OP provided service connection to him on 21022006 and since then the Complainant was enjoying electricity by paying electric bills regularly. Further case of the Complainant was that as the 11,000 vol. HT line got damaged being struck by lightning, he did not get any power supply for four long months and ultimately, the connection was restored on 07112011. Despite this, the OP sent him average bill for a sum of Rs. 1,517/ during the said four months. It is further alleged that although the Complainant deposited Rs. 12,600/ for purchasing the meter, the OP still charged him Rs. 25/ every month as meter rent. Although the Complainant brought all these matters to the notice of the OP, it did not redress his grievance. Hence, the complaint. In its defence, it was submitted by the OP that out of the Rs. 12,600/ that was initially deposited by the Complainant, cost of P.B. Box amounting to Rs. 3,600/ was not refundable as per norm of the Board and balance amount of Rs. 9,000/ has been adjusted @ Rs. 900/ per month. Admitting that the meter became defective as stated in the complaint, citing its rule, the OP defended its decision to send average bills till such time the meter was replaced. Decision with reasons Despite service of notice, the Respondent did not turn up. So, the Appeal was heard in absence of the Respondent. The Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant argued that billing related disputes cannot be agitated before the Consumer Fora. He also argued that the Electricity Act being a Special Act, shall prevail over the Consumer Protection Act. We, however, completely disagree with such proposition of the Ld. Advocate given that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of U.P.Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors vs Anis Ahmad, reported in 2013(13) CLT 226 in categorical terms put at rest the aforesaid issues. Relevant portion of the observation of Hon'ble Court is appended below which is selfexplanatory. "(i) In case of inconsistency between the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the provisions of Consumer Protection Act will prevail, but ipso facto it will not vest the Consumer Forum with the power to redress any dispute with regard to the matters which do not come within the meaning of "service" as defined under Section 2(1)(o) or "complaint"as defined under Section 2(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. (ii) A "complaint" against the assessment made by assessing officer under Section 126 or against the offences committed under Sections 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is not maintainable before a Consumer Forum. (iii) 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" under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or the Central Government or the State Government or association of consumers 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". The present billing dispute since been not falling either u/s 126 or u/s 135 to 140 of the 2003 Act, the Ld. District Forum rightly adjudicated the case. Coming to the bone of contention regarding adjustment of Rs. 12,600/, the Appellant has claimed that the cost of P.P.Box amounting to Rs. 3,600/ was nonrefundable as per norms of the Appellant Board. The Ld. District Forum seems to have