Request for rectification of a bill for 844 units dt.15.10.2011 amounting Rs.3,891/- being refuted by the OP No.1 has obliged the complaint to lodge this complaint with this Forum under section 12 of the CP Act 1986.
The summation of the complaint goes that the complainant is a consumer of the OP-1 having Consumer ID No.433040328 and Service Connection No.15338/C. The complainant received a fictitious bill amounting to Rs. 2,172/- for the period from July to September, 2010 and after sustained request and persuasion by the complainant had been adjusted in 5 bills dt.12.10.2010, 30.12.2010, 09.04.2011, 12.07.2011 and 15.10.2011. But the bill dt.15.10.2011 recorded a consumption of 844 units which do not conform to the reading recorded in the yellow card. This has been brought to the notice of the OP verbally and in writing time and again and this was also brought to the table of the A.D.,CA & FBP, Dakshin Dinajpur for mediation on 17.04.2017. But in spite of serious efforts for solving the problem the case has been dropped by the office of the A.D., CA & FBP, Dakshin Dinajpur without any result on 06.07.2017. Then the complainant came to this Forum for redressal of his grievance where he had admitted that the consumption is for his shop in a part of his house & this shop is his livelihood. The OP has prayed for rectification of the bill according to the reading recorded in the yellow card and claimed a compensation amounting Rs.20,000/-(Twenty Thousand) for his harassment and litigation cost amounting Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand).
The OP in his written version had denied any malafide intention for preparing the bill. He has questioned maintainability of the case under the CP Act 1986as the consumer is a commercial consumer. Moreover, as the bill in question was prepared more than 2 years so it is barred by limitation.
On argument the learned lawyer for the complainant has argued that though the connection has been meant for his shop but that shop is the only livelihood of the complainant’s family. So the explanation of consumer under section 2 (d) of the CP Act 1986 is to be implied here. The question of limitation of time for filing this complaint may not be implied here as the complainant has been moving from door to door of different authority for his redressal and as he has got not redressal of his cause of grievance, finally he came to this Forum for proper adjudication.
On argument the OP further raised the question of maintainability and time of limitation. They had also told the unit 844 has been mistakenly noted in the bill and according to record in the yellow card the OP has to pay the bill for 862 units up to 13.11.2017. The units in questions may be adjusted with the present reading and no LPSC charges will be imposed for the period.
Points to discuss:-
- Whether the case is maintainable within the term ‘Consumer’ and ‘limitation’.
- Whether any deficiency in service occurred on the part of the OP 1.
DECISION WITH REASONS
On the question of maintainability with regard to ‘Consumer’ in the instant case this has already been decided vide order No.7 dt. 05.12.2017 by this learned Forum and this Forum had no capacity to review /revise its own order. On the question of ‘limitation’ it had been observed that though the cause of grievance arose through a bill dt.15.10.2011 prepared by the OP-1 but the complainant through so many documents had proved that since then he had gone to the doors of the OP No.1 time and again and even knocked at the door at the office of the CA & FBP Daskhin Dinajpur in April 2017 and earning no relief from any end he had come to this Forum for adjudication and redressal. So the grievance was very much in process. So section 24 (A) of the CP Act, 1986 cannot be implied in the instant case. The learned lawyer for the OP had admitted their fault in preparing the disputed bill and had agreed to rectify it in reply to the interrogation by this Forum. Deficiency in service lies with the OP-1 as what he had stated to this Forum on 24.04.2018, that was to be informed the complainant in 2011, so that neither the complainant had to come to Forum and suffer harassment nor the W.B.S.E.D.C.L. was deprived of getting its proper charges for supplying electricity within a due time. The person concerned in this regard had played a vicious role for the suffering of the complainant and also the organization to which he is an employee.
It has been observed that the billing system and the payment thereon is not transparent enough. The proper authority has to make out some policy so that a bill beyond the disputed period may be prepared and a consumer may pay the said bills except disputed bill under litigation. Such policy is to be made so that neither the government suffers to get its charges for the services like electricity nor also a huge burden of electrical charges may be borne by a consumer after the decision of the honorable Forum.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
The complainant had to pay charges for 862 units including the disputed units of 844 up to 13.11.2017. Within 15 days from the date of receiving the bill from the OP 1, who will prepare it within 7 days from the date of this order.
The OP 1 will prepare next bill for the period after reading dt. 13.11.2017 till the date of this order within 30 days from this order. The charges for this bill are to be paid by the complainant within 15 days after receiving the bill. No LPSC charges are to be imposed for any period of billing up to the date of this order. No compensation has been allowed as the
LPSC charge has been exempted. The complainant is eligible to get a litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- (Two thousand only) which is to be paid by the OP 1 within 30 days from the date of this order.
Let a plain copy of this order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost.
