Hon’ble Mr. Ajeya Matilal, Presiding Member
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with final order dt. 16.03.2021 passed by Ld. DCDRF, Kolkata, Unit –III in CC/53/2019 allowing the case on contest with a direction upon the OPs being the present appellants to refund Rs. 23.76/- to the complainant along with compensation of Rs. 25000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 10000/- payable within the 45 days from the order with a default clause of payment of interest, the appellant/OPs preferred this appeal.
The fact of the case is in short like that the complainant being the present respondent was a bona fide consumer having Consumers ID no. 02001842381 was never a defaulter in payment of electric bills. He received bill for the months of November, 2008 bearing no. 02205037076/ 1183 dt. 16.12.2018. He paid the same and the due date was 26.12.2018. The complainant paid the said monthly consumption bill for November, 2018 of Rs. 1120/- through his Google pay account on 26.12.2018, within due date. But the complainant on 25.01.2019 received a notice of disconnection from OPs stating that he had neglected to pay bill for the amount raised for accounting month of November, 2018 for Rs. 23.76/-. Although the complainant made payment within November, 2018 within due date but according to him the OP apparently adopted unfair trade practice. However, on 24.01.2014 the complainant paid Rs. 810/- including extra amount. So, the complainant filed the instant case for payment of Rs. 50000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs. 10000/-.
The OPs contested the case by filing written version.
According to them as per their record the amount of bill for the complainant was Rs. 1143.76/- and net payable amount was Rs. 1130/- after rebate within due date i.e. 23.12.2018, and the net amount payable for e-payment was Rs. 1130/- after rebate within due date i.e. on 26.12.2018.
The OPs received the amount of Rs. 1120/- for November, 2018, the accounting bill on 29.12.2018 through mobile payment after the due date i.e. 26.12.2018. So, according to the OPs the complainant is not entitled to any relief as prayed for.
Both parties adduced evidence on their behalf.
The points for consideration framed by the Ld. Forum below are like that
- Whether there has been any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to relief as prayed for?
The Ld. Forum below decided all these points answering in affirmative in favour of the complainant.
Now the question is that whether impugned judgment suffers from any illegality.
Findings, the Ld. Advocate for the complainant/respondent submitted that they paid the said amount on 26.12.2018 through It would reveal from annexure B of the complaint that the amount was credited from the account of the complainant. In reply the Ld. Advocate for the appellant submitted that the aforesaid amount was received by them on 29.12.2018 through Google Pay. So, as per her submission the appeal deserves to be allowed.
In this contest he referred to Rule 3.3.6 of notification dt. 07.08.2013 of the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission regarding payment but no document regarding alleged belated payment has been furnished before the Ld. Forum below by the CESC Authorities.
Our attention was drawn to the payment information report (lower court annexure D) wherefrom it appears that consumer no. was misprinted as 0220503707 instead of the correct consumer no. 02205037076.
But it appears that the complainant paid the electric bill concerned within the stipulated period through Google Pay. But due to some technical problems it was not received by the CESC during the stipulated period of 20.12.2018, but not document has been filed before the Ld. Forum below and also before this commission to the effect that the payment was received by the CESC on 29.12.2018.
The Ld. Advocate for the respondent submitted that being an advocate the matter involves his reputation in the eye of public at large because a disconnection notice has been served upon an Advocate concerned without any foundation. But we are of the view that compensation of Rs. 20000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 8000/- to be payable by the OPs would meet the demand of justice.
Consequently, the appeal being no. 62/2021 is allowed in part on contest.
Accordingly, CC/53/2019 is allowed. The OPs are directed to refund Rs. 23.76/- to the complainant and pay compensation of Rs. 20000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 8000/- within 45 days, failing which, it shall carry interest @8% p.a. from the aforesaid date till the date of realisation of entire amount in default the complainant will be at liberty to put the award into execution.
The impugned order is modified to that extent.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the Ld. Forum below.
The Joint Registrar of this Commission is requested to do the needful in this regard.
