The Complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency-in-service by the O.Ps, where O.P No.1 is the Junior Manager, Electrical, Basta No.1 Section, Basta, Balasore, O.P No.2 is the Executive Engineer, NESCO, Basta, Balasore, O.P No.3 is the S.D.O, Basta Electrical NESCO, Basta, Balasore and O.P No.4 is the Junior Engineer, Electrical, Rajghat, Balasore.
1. Factual matrix of the dispute is that the Complainant is a Consumer under O.Ps availed scheme of “Kutir Jyoti” since 1992 vide consumer No.KJ-0093 and paying electric bills regularly, but the transformer of the said village burnt on 11.06.1996, thereby the Complainant could not avail electric supply from 11.06.1996 to December, 2005. Thus, the O.Ps were supplying with the bill to the complainant during these period, resulting the Complainant time and again intimated to the O.Ps in the matter and as per direction of O.Ps No.1 to 3, the Complainant obtained a written report from O.P No.4 in support of his claim and accordingly, O.P No.4 admitted claim of the Complainant. Thus, the Complainant time and again lodged written complaint before the O.Ps for correction of illegal bills imposed by them, but the O.Ps remained silent and also threatened the Complainant to disconnect the electric supply through the Complainant availed the same on 21.01.2006 and accordingly, the Complainant is paying electric bills regularly from 22.01.2006 till date. But, the O.Ps are regularly demanding to pay the illegal outstanding dues of Rs.17,102/- (Rupees Seventeen Thousand one hundred two only) as on 30.01.2012 or else threatening to disconnect the electric supply to the Complainant. Hence, prayer of the Complainant is for correction of illegal bills supplied by the O.Ps along with compensation for mental agony and litigation cost.
2. Written version filed by the O.Ps through their Advocate, where they have denied about maintainability as well as its cause of action and also submitted that the present complaint is a time barred and derogatory complaint, itself. Further, the O.Ps have submitted that the so-called dispute in this complaint relates to impugned period i.e. from June, 1996 to December, 2005 and live transformer was functioning during the above said period and the Complainant was also availing power supply. But, the Complainant is a Chronic defaulter and also is not free from liability during the impugned period for that he is liable to pay the same as arrear dues for the end of justice and Law and thereby the complaint deserves dismissal with cost to these O.Ps also.
3. In view of the above averments of both the Parties, the points for determinations of this case are as follows:-
(i) Whether this Consumer case is maintainable as per Law.
(ii) Whether there is any cause of action to file this case.
(iii) Whether this case is barred by Law of Limitation.
(iv) To what relief the Complainant is entitled for ?
4. In order to substantiate their pleas, the Complainant has filed certain documents as per list in his support, whereas the O.Ps have not filed any document in their support. Perused the same. It has been argued on behalf of the Complainant that since 11.06.1996 to December, 2005, the Complainant was not getting the electric line along with other Consumers, but the O.Ps had calculated illegal outstanding against the Complainant along with other Consumers. In spite of written complaint by the Complainant before O.Ps for correction of illegal bills imposed on him, the O.Ps remained silent. Then the Complainant served Advocate notice to the O.Ps, but the defect was not removed, for which the Complainant came to this Forum for correction of illegal bills supplied by the O.Ps amounting to Rs.17,102/- (Rupees Seventeen Thousand one hundred two only) along with compensation and litigation cost. Further, it has been argued that the non-availability of electric connection for the stipulated period has been endorsed by the J.E, Electrical Concerned, but the same material is not available in the case record. Furthermore, a xerox copy of hand written letter of Rama Chandra Jena and Bhanu Charan Jena is available in the case record, which is addressed to the S.D.O, Electrical, Basta. This letter discloses that Rama Chandra Jena has been mentioned to be the grandson of the Complainant, but no material is available whether such letter is duly served upon to the S.D.O, Electrical, Basta. The Complainant has filed two electric bills for the month of January, 2014 and February, 2014 regarding outstanding of dues. The bill for January, 2014 is Rs.19,909/- (Rupees Nineteen Thousand nine hundred nine only) and the bill for February, 2014 is Rs.20,002/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Two only). But, such amount is not correspondent with the amount to be corrected. However, another bill of January, 2016 is available in the case record, which discloses the due of Rs.15,373/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand three hundred seventy three only) and it is also not correspondent with the amount to be corrected. The Complainant’s Advocate has remained totally silent to clarify the same at the time of argument. The Advocate for O.Ps has argued that no such occasion had taken place for non-availability of electric line in the area of the Complainant for the stipulated period and the allegation of the Complainant is false. Further, the claim of the Complainant is barred by Law of Limitation as per Section-24(A) of C.P Act, 1986. The claim is for the period of 11.06.1996 to December, 2005 and the case was filed on 04.04.2016 without showing any sufficient cause for condoning the delay. However, inadvertently the case was admitted by the then Ld. District Forum. For proper appreciation, the Section-24 (A) is reflected as follows- “(1) The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-Section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in Sub-Section (1), if the Complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period:
Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.”
5. So, now on careful consideration of all the materials available in the case record, this Forum come to the conclusion that the Complainant has miserably failed to prove his case on merit as well as it is barred by Law of Limitation, for which this Consumer case is liable to be dismissed. Hence, Ordered:-
O R D E R
The Consumer case is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps, but in the peculiar circumstances without cost.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this day i.e. the 17th day of July, 2017 given under my Signature & Seal of the Forum.
