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, O.P No.2 is the Executive Engineer, NESCO, Basta, O.P No.3 is the S.D.O, Basta Electrical NESCO and O.P No.4 is the Junior Engineer, Electrical, Rajghat. 

                    2. The case of the Complainant in brief is that the Complainant is a bonafide Consumer under the O.Ps in “Kutir Jyoti” scheme from 1992 bearing Consumer No.KJ-0091 and paying electric bills regularly. But, unfortunately, the transformer of the said village was burnt on 11.06.1996, thus the Complainant could not avail electricity and the O.Ps supply with the electric bill to the Complainant, where the Complainant along with other villagers raised objection. The O.Ps assured to deduct such bill amount. In spite of several approaches made by the Complainant along with the villagers to the O.Ps, but the O.P No.1 to 3 directed the Complainant and others to obtain a written report from O.P No.4 admitting claim of the Complainant and others. Time and again, the Complainant and others had written to the O.Ps for correction of illegal outstanding bills since 11.06.1996 to December-2005, but the O.Ps remained silent, although the O.Ps admitted that the Complainant along with others have not availed electricity during above said period. The Complainant availed electricity on 21.01.2006 from the O.Ps, but the O.Ps are demanding to pay Rs.17,103/- (Rupees Seventeen thousand one hundred three) only as on 30.01.2012 and threatening to disconnect the electric supply, causing mental agony to the Complainant. Cause of action to file this case arose on 10.03.2016. The Complainant has prayed for correction of illegal bills from 11.06.1996 to December-2005 supplied by the O.Ps along with compensation for mental agony and litigation cost.

                    3. Written version filed by the O.Ps through their Advocate denying on the point of maintainability, limitation as well as its cause of action. The O.Ps have further submitted that the Complainant is a Consumer under the O.Ps, but a chronic defaulter in nature, which is transpired from the computerized billing statements and the present complaint is a time barred complaint. 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 as admitted by the Complainant and the Complainant was also availing power supply. Thus, the Complainant is not free from liability during the impugned period for that he is liable to pay the same as arrear dues for the ends of justice and Law and thereby, the complaint deserves dismissal with cost to the O.Ps also.

                    4. In view of the above averments of both the Parties, the points for determination 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 ? 

                    5. In order to substantiate their claim, both the Parties have filed certain documents as per list. Perused the documents filed. The Complainant has filed a petition on 11.07.2017 praying to condone the delay on the ground stated therein and order was passed on 13.02.2018 for consideration of the same at the time of main hearing. The Advocate for Complainant has mentioned in the petition that as the Complainant is a lay man and does not know about the procedure of law and thus, he is unable to file this case in time and prayed for condonation of delay without mentioning how many days of delay has been caused. For mere submission of Advocate for the Complainant without supporting any document, such submission has no force as Law is equal to all and I also found no reasonable ground to condone the delay and the delay is fatal to this case and the case is barred by law of limitation and hence, the petition is rejected accordingly. 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. Thus, 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.17,103/- (Rupees Seventeen thousand one hundred three) 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, but no material is available whether such letter is duly served upon the S.D.O concerned. The Complainant has filed two electric bills for the month of January-2016 and February-2016 regarding outstanding of dues. The bill for January-2016 is Rs.14,656/- (Rupees Fourteen thousand six hundred fifty six) only and the bill for February-2016 is Rs.15,022/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand twenty two only). But, such amount is not corresponding with the amount to be corrected. The Advocate for the Complainant 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.”

                    6. 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 the Complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed for and accordingly, 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 13th day of March, 2018 given under my Signature & Seal of the Forum.