The instant case under Sec. 12 of the C.P. Act has raised due to repudiation of the request of the complainant for detailing the amount claimed in the bill dt. 14/01/2017 & raising a further bill amounting Rs. 33784.41/- dt. 09/07/2012 by the OP.

              The summation of the averment of the complainant goes thus. The complainant is a consumer of the OP bearing ID No. 433162086 & meter no. T-039941 and it is a commercial connection for her shop, Room No. 19 at District Sports Stadium Market, Dakshin Dinajpur. The complainant has stated that it is her only livelihood by means of self employment. But, she has also stated that she could not start her business & the room has remained locked since April,2014. In spite of that the OP has raised a bill for the period August,2016 to October,2016 for the consumption of units 6729 amounting  Rs. 70016/-. Though she raised the objection against the exorbitant amount, the local W.B.S.E.D.C.L. authority assured to verify the confusion after payment of the said bill amounting Rs. 70016/-. Accordingly, she had paid the whole amount in three instalments on good faith. But, further a bill amounting Rs. 33784.41/- for consumption of units 3102 for period February,2017 to April, 2017 has been sent. Hence, the complainant has been led to lodge the complaint with this forum.

              The OP in its written version has stated that the instant case is not maintainable under Sec. 2(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act,1986. They have also stated that the bill amount for period is actually the rectified fresh bill of the previous bill dt. 14/01/2017.

              On argument it was established by the complainant through a document (kept in file) where the DDCN authority had admitted that the room no. 19 of the said market had remained closed since April,2014. The complainant had also admitted that she had taken the commercial connection from the OP for carrying on her shop but it had failed for some reasons.

              This forum observes that the OP’s view on the point of maintainability of the instant case is true in the context of the C.P. Act,1986. But, the OP has admitted their fault in calculating the units. It is also observed that there is lack in transparency in raising the bill which is to be a clear record to any consumer.

       Hence, the case is dismissed on default.

            Let a copy of this order be supplied or sent to the parties concerned free of cost.