The case of the complainant is arise from a domestic electricity bill dated 25.7.19 for the consumer ID No 422039898 for the month July to September in the year 2019. According to the complainant, on 5.8.19, which is the 1st payment date of the alleged bill for Rs. 3802/- he went to the office of the O.P, at Gopalpur House , P.O. & Dist. Jalpaiguri intended to deposit the said bill amount by a cheque bearing no.067513 in the concerned cash counter. The employees of the O.P. in the said counter flatly refused to accept the same on the plea that the bill amount was not showing in the machine that is the computer and then he was advised by the concerned personnel to make contact in the billing section immediately. Thereafter the complaint had been to the billing section and he was told to come on 07.08.19 for receive a fresh bill keeping the amount as it is only extending the date of payment for further 10 days deferring from the stipulated period of payment as given in bill. On 07.8.19 the complainant went to the office of the O.P and he was handed over a fresh bill dated 27.7.19 for Rs. 3898/- including the rebate provided. According to the new bill the payment was to be made on the 1st payment date i.e. 06.08.19 which had expired a day before. The complainant immediately pointed out the above matter and he was assured by the employees of the O.P. that the matter would be looked into with urgent basis and at the earliest on behalf of the O.P. After waiting for few days on 16.08.19 complainant submitted a written complainant in the docket of the O.P. Till date no reply has been received by the complainant from the O.P. For the reason the complainant under a painful necessity and on reasonable grievance file the case before this commission.
The O.P. has entered appearance by filing Written Version, evidence on affidavit, Brief notes of argument and also participates in the hearing of argument. They both exchange questionnaires with each-other. The statements made in the different paragraphs of the complaint petition are all denied by the O.P. The case of the O.P is that, the case is not maintainable in law nor on facts .The case is barred by law of limitations. The case also barred the provisions of Sec 42 and 43 of Electricity Act 2003.The version of the O.P is that there is no substantial evidence that the complainant had come to make payment of his electric bill in the office of the O.P as the complainant did not approach the Station Manager or other employees at NBPP CCC after failing to make payment. This O.P categorically denies the statements and allegations made by the complainant. O.P also stated that the billing system of WBSEDCL is centralized & no staff of Billing Section(mostly contractual staff under Outsourced agency) are entitled to give any sort of assurances regarding bill amount or extension of due dates. Also, no physically powerful evidence has been provided by the complainant regarding his claim that such assurances were provided to him. The O.P also stated that "Received Acknowledgement of NBPP CCC by seal & Signature is provided in a separate sheet mentioning Sender & Receiver, whereas there is no evidence of receipt via official seal & signature in the body of the complaint letter. Such ambiguity arises since there is no trace of such complaint letter in the Received Documents Register of NBPP CCC on 16.08.2019 or any other dates. It is hardly possible to proof by mechanical or electronic process that the complainant went to the office of the O.P but he was refused to accept the cheque. There is no deficiency of services on the part of the O.P and the O.P argued that the case is liable to be dismissed with costs.
Points for consideration
- Whether the complainant is a consumer?
- Whether the case is maintainable under the C.P. Act?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service in the part of the O.P. as alleged by the complainant?
- Is the complainant is entitled to get any award and relief as prayed for?
All the points are taken up together for consideration and decision.
According to the consumer protection act “consumer” means any person who,—
(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or
(ii) hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the ser vices for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such ser vices for any commercial purpose;
Explanation.—for the purposes of this clause, “commercial purpose” does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self employment;”
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in “U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. versus Anis Ahmad, 2013 (8) SCC 491 has held as under:
The Electricity Act, 2003 and the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 runs parallel for giving redressal to any person, who falls within the meaning of "consumer" under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or the Central Government or the State Government or association of consumers but it is limited to the dispute relating to "unfair trade practice" or a "restrictive trade practice adopted by the service provider"; or “if the consumer suffers from deficiency in service”; or “hazardous service”; or “the service provider has charged a price in excess of the price fixed by or under any law”
Complainant is a consumer of the O.P. Consumers ID No 422039898. The complainant has both the territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction for filing the case before this commission. These points are never challenged by the OP. The defending points of the O.P “the case is not maintainable in law or on facts” “the case is barred by law of limitations” “the case is barred the provisions of Sec 42 and 43 of Electricity Act 2003” are not substantiate by the O.P during the proceedings of the case.
In paragraph 5&6 of the written argument opposite party alleged that there is no substantial evidence whether the compliment had come to make payment as the complainant did not approach the station manager or other employee at NBPP, CCC after become unsuccessful to make payment. But, the question arises that how can a person prove his existence or attendance in a government or private office without of cctv footage or any visitor attendance? Complainant files a canceled cheque dated05/08/2019 as a proof of his existence or attendance in the premises of the O.P for making payment of electric bill. In the same written argument opposite party stated that it is hardly possible to proof by mechanical or electronic process that the complainant went to the office of the O.P but he was refused to accept the bank cheque.
Opposite party stated that an ambiguity/doubt arises since “there is no evidence of receipt via official seal and signature in the body of the complaint letter dated 16/08/2019. But, the opposite party never taken any plea about the seal, date and signature fixed in a break up paper along with the complaint letter dated 16/08/2019 produce by the complainant.
Opposite party was totally silent about the obligation of issuance of second bill in a same matter. They never challenge the second bill but totally silent about the fact that why they issue the second bill dated 27/07/2019 on 07/08/2019 for Rs. 3898/- with a first due date 06/08/2019. From the upper mentioned fact it transpire that the O.P issue the second bill after the first payment due date and for this negligence of the O.P the complainant debarred from access the rebate.
In all the objections, affidavit and written argument file by the opposite party they point out that the specific employees mention by the compliment is not made necessary party in this case. But, during the pendency of the case the opposite party never files any petition to make them party for bringing the right fact in front of the commission as the alleged person is a stuff of the O.P and his/her evidence is necessary for prove their case.
In a very significant judgment with far reaching consequences, the THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA in a learned, laudable, landmark and latest judgment titled Pradeep Kumar And Anr. vs Post Master General and Ors in Civil Appeal No. 8775-8776 of 2016 delivered as recently as on February 7, 2022 held that once it is established that fraud or any wrongful act was perpetrated by an employee of a post/bank office during the course of their employment, the post/bank office would be vicariously liable for the wrongful act of such employee. The Supreme Court clarified that the post office is entitled to proceed against the concerned officer, but the same would not absolve them from their liability.
We have gone through the records and other related documents of the case and have come to conclusion that the Respondent (Opposite Party) would be liable for negligence. In view of the above discussion we may come to the conclusion that the O.P. is guilty for deficiency in services and the service provided by the O.P. were not up to the mark.
Therefore, the complainant is entitled to the relief as specified bellow.
All points are disposed of. In the result the case/ application succeeds.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
We allow the consumer case by issuing the following directions
- OP is directed to refund Rs. 96/- to the complainant.
- O.P is further directed to make payment of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only as compensation for harassment and mental agony caused to the complainant on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
- Above payments shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order. Failing which the amount shall carry interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of order till its realization. Complainant is given liberty to execute the order as per law if not paid by the OP.
Let a copy of the order be sent / supplied at free of cost to the parties concerned.
The Final Order will be available in the following website www.confonet.nic.in
