DATE OF FILING : 07-08-2013. DATE OF S/R : 10-09-2013. DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 25-11-2013. SRI SUKUMAR SHEE C/O- Late Sadhan Chandra Shee, Vill- Nuntia, P.O. Mugkalyan, P.S.- Bagnan, District - Howrah, PIN – 711 312.------------------------------------------------------------------ COMPLAINANT. - Versus - The Station Superintendent, W.B.S.E.D.C.L Bagnan-II, Group CCC, Vill- Nuntia, P.O. Mugkalyan, P.S.- Bagnan, District - Howrah, PIN – 711 312..----------------------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTY. P R E S E N T President : Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS. Member : Shri P.K. Chatterjee. Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha. F I N A L O R D E R 1. The instant case was filed by complainant U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986, as amended against the O.P. WBSEDCL Authority alleging deficiency in service U/S 2(1)(g), 2(1)(o) of the C.P. Act, 1986 wherein the complainant has prayed for passing necessary direction upon the O.P. WBSEDCL Authority for correct8ion and rectification of the bill for the period 7/2013 to 9/2013 sent to the complainant including other reliefs as compensation and litigations costs 2. The brief facts of the case is that the complainant received a bill for the month July, 2013 to September, 2013 amounting to Rs. 100705/- for the units d11780 and lodged a complaint before the O.P. which is due considered and finally he ( herein the complainant ) placed the whole episode before the Forum for a relief and compensation. 3. The O.P. WBSEDCL Authority contesting the case contending interlaid that the complainant did not come before the Forum in clean hands and is totally harassing misconceived and baseless and the complaint so raised was settled at the grass root level at the very first time and within a reasonable period through computerized regenerating system and the complainant paid the regenerated bill vide money receipt no. 55317 and 56916 dated 06-09-2013 for which this answ4ring O.Ps. prays for dismissal the case with exemplary costs. 4. Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination : i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. WBSEDCL Authority ? ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? DECISION WITH REASONS : 4. Both the points are taken up together for consideration. Perused the enclosure issued by the O.P. WBSEDCL Authority . On proper scanning of the argument as advanced by the agents of both parties and also reviewing the materials documents filed by the parties, the brief of the complaint, and also written version we have searched out some of the points as per complaint which are to be decided in this case to arrive at just conclusion. 5. The main contention of the O.P. WBSEDCL Authority is that the complainant Received the disputed bill for the period 7/13 to 9/13 against wrong meter reading as agreed by the O.P. and thereby regenerated after recording the correct meter reading and raised the bill through computerized system against complaint made by the complainant on 05-08-2013 for the said disputed billing, of Rs. 11,089/- of total units 1480. Subsequently the complainant paid the corrected bill on the dated 19-08-2012 and 06-09-2013 respectively vide money receipt no. 55317 and 56916. 6. But the pertinent question come in respect of the complainant Shri Sukumar Shee it is noticed that the complainant is a bonafide consumer having paid the electric consumption bill time to time but subsequently all on a sudden received a disputed bill and lodged complaint before the O.P. who admitted the facts and effective measures have been taken towards issuance a corrected bill through computerized billing system and the complainant paid the bill without any ambiguity. 7. From the above we must say that there is no latches on the part of the O.P. WBSEDCL Authority who have taken due care/ action at the very first instance under which deficiency in service U/S 2(1)(G) does not hold good as the O.P. mitigated the grievances of the complainant within the time frame as per WBERC Regulations. However, the initial action of the O.P. herein the Station Manager, Bagnan –II, Gr. CCC is not appreciated by this Forum for which the O.P. should be penalized to a certain action as a team leader who was not taken due care for sending copy bill under this complaint which need to do at the present moment with regard to unjustified claiming excess billing from the complainant which caused harassment to the complainant for which the complaint has suffered a little bit mental pain and agony against which the complainant shall be compensated by the O.P. WBSEDCL Authority with a little bit. In the result, we are of the view that this is a fit case where the prayer of the complainant shall be allowed to a certain extent. The points are accordingly disposed of. Hence, O R D E R E D That the C. C. Case No. 273 of 2013 ( HDF 273 of 2013 ) be disposed of on contest with cost against the O.P. WBSEDCL Authority . The O.P. WBSEDCL Authority i.e., Station Manager, Bagnan II, Gr. CCC be directed to be very cautious to raise the energy bill after taking proper care in due course so that the consumer may not be harassed unnecessarily. The O.P. WBSEDCL Authority is hereby directed to compensate the complainant by paying Rs. 2,000/- as compensation for time bound harassment and mental agony. The O.P. WBSEDCL Authority is also directed to pay Rs. 1,000/- as litigation costs. The entire cost of Rs. 3,000/- (Rs 2,000 + 1,000/-) shall be paid within 30 days from the date of this order failure of which a penal action @ 9% p.a. shall be paid till realization. The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period. Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule. | 
