The instant case was instituted on the basis of a petition of a petition of complaint filed by one Mahatabuddin of Vill.– Mahendeapur, P.S. Harischandrapur, Dist. –Malda u/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which was registered as Complaint Case No. 60/2015. The fact of the case as revealed from the petition of complaint as well as from the evidence is that the complainant is a consumer under the W.B.S.E.D.C.L through Harishchandrapur Customer Care Centre. The O.P. got the electric connection from the O.P. for consumption of electricity of his Sallo deep tube-oil vide Consumer No. 661330. It has been further stated that the wire of sallo machine was stolen as a result of which the sallo machine became inoperative. The incident of theft of wire from the sallo machine was informed to the Harishchandrapur S.E.D.C.L. In spite of that the electric bill came to the hand of the complainant amounting to Rs. 17,227/- (Rupees Seventeen Thousand Two Hundred Twenty Seven Only).Thereafter, on 20/07/2011 for Rs. 630/- (Rupees Six Hundred Thirty Only). It has been further stated that the Sallo Machine of the complainant was lying inoperative since 15/02/2011. Due to non-operation of the machine the complainant being a poor person is facing acute financial crisis due to non-production of crops. The complainant personally went to the office of the O.P. and reported in writing on 30/07/2011 which was acknowledged by the office on 11/08/2011. Thereafter, letter was given to the office of O.P. on 22/01/2014 and on 02/07/2014.  Ultimately, there was no fruitful result  as such the complainant has come to this Forum with a prayer to redress his claim.

The petition has been contested by the O.Ps by filing written version denying all the material allegations as leveled against the O.Ps contending inter alia that the instant case is not maintainable. The complainant has no right to file the case. The case is barred by law of limitation.

The further definite defense case is that the complainant is a defaulter in payment of bill. It is also denied that the Sallo Machine of the complainant was lying disorder since 15/02/2011. The further definite defense case is that the O.P.s came to know about the facts on 25/10/2011 through an application dt. 30/07/2011

The further defense case is that in order to make up the period of limitation the complainant has falsely submitted the letters dt. 22/01/2014 and 02/07/2014.  The further defense case is that the consumption of electricity for running the Sallo Machine was raised as per rules as such there was regularity. Concerning such facts and circumstances the instant case is liable to be dismissed with cost. In order to prove the case the complainant Mahatabuddin was examined as P.W.-1 and cross-examined. He filed the documents and the O.Ps filed the questionnaires and the complainant gave the reply to the queries.

Now the point for determination whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for. 

::DECISION WITH REASONS::

At the time of argument the Ld.Lawyer of the complainant argued that the Shallow machine was inoperative since 30/07/2011 but in spite of that the petitioner received a bill of Rs. 17,727/- (Rupees Seventeen Thousand Seven Hundred Twenty Seven Only). Thereafter on 20/07/2011 he received a bill for Rs. 630/-(Rupees Six Hundred Thirty Only). The Ld.Lawyer of the complainant further argued that such incident which was occurred on 30/07/2011 was informed to the office of the O.P. No.1 and the said petition was duly acknowledged by the office of O.P. No.1 on 01.08.2011. It is understood why the complainant waited till the date of filing of this case on 23/07/2015 when he did not get any relief from the office of O.P. No.1. On the other hand the Ld.Lawyer of the O.Ps argued  that the instant case is completely barred by Law of Limitation as in the petition it has been stated that the Sallo Machine was inoperative from 15/02/2011. Why the complainant did not come to this Forum to redress her remedy with the two years from the date of disorder of Sallo Machine even he did not come to this Forum when the intimation was given to the office of O.P. No.1 on 01/08/2011. So the case is completely barred by law of limitation.

Perused the document. On perusal of the document it is found that the complainant informed the office of the O.P. on 01/08/2011. So the instant case is completely barred by law of limitation. The Ld.Lawyer of the complainant argued that on 22/01/2017 the complainant informed the Station Superintendent Harishchandrapur S.E.D.C.L by a letter. The letter was duly received but on perusal of the letter it is found that in the letter the complainant has especially mentioned the fact of theft of wire in the month of March, 2011. Even by a letter dt. 30/07/2015 the complainant also informed the fact about the theft of wire in the year 2011. So by this letter it is found that the incident took place in the year 2011. So by such letter dt. 24/01/2014 the jurisdiction of this Forum cannot be counted. Moreover, when there is a dispute as regard to the reading of the meter and whether the meter is defective or not the complainant should approach before the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission. In this regard this Forum has got no jurisdiction. Moreover, the complainant  

has prayed to direct the O.P. to submit the fresh bill. There is no prayer for injunction for direction upon the O.P. to submit the fresh bill. This Forum cannot give any mandatory direction to the O.P. without any formal prayer for mandatory injunction. So considering the facts and circumstances the instant case is liable to be dismissed.

C.F. paid is correct.

Hence, ordered that

the case be and the same is dismissed on contest without any cost.

Let a copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost on proper application.