This is a complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 filed by the complainant, Kalachand Chouhan praying for compensation of Rs.15,000/- for mental, physical and financial loss.

The fact of this case in brief is that the complainant is a domestic consumer under O.P./ WBSEDCL having Consumer ID - 432056783. He pays electricity bills regularly. On 16.09.2014 he paid bill for the month of Sep’14 and excess payment was made of Rs.1,600/-, but the payment was not accepted by the O.P. for the subsequent months. He contacted the office of the O.P. for accepting the bill, but with no result. Then he received electricity bill for the month of Dec’14 of Rs.5,625/-, Jan’15 of Rs.776/- and Feb’15 of Rs.776/-. He then contacted Customer Care Centre, Raiganj with those bills along with previous bill of Oct’14 & Nov’14. Then he was told that for some technical fault, the payment of bill for Sep’14 is shown “Non-posting”. However, the electricity bill of Oct’14 & Nov’14 total Rs.4,022/- he deposited against receipt. On 06.02.2015 he made payment of Rs.1,563/- for Dec’14 and on 26.05.2015 he deposited Rs.1,450/- for the month of Jan’15 & Feb’15. But the problem arose again and he was not allowed to pay successive electricity bills in the office counter. Therefore, complainant was harassed by the O.P. every time to make payment of the bill for such ‘Non-posting’, a technical fault. He come up with this complaint petition before this Forum lastly with the above mentioned prayer.

O.P./ WBSEDCL appeared and contested this case by filing written version, stating that the complaints are all frivolous and fictitious, save and except which are matter of record. The fact is that complainant paid electricity bills for Sep’14 through company’s “Kiosk machine” (ATM). But due to some technical fault in the machine, it was not credited into the company’s account. The matter was intimated to ‘Bidyut Bhawan’ and other higher authority and the higher authority also informed the matter to this O.P. asking him to make subsequent bill and not to make payment of outstanding bill of Sep’14. O.P. took utmost steps to repair the mechanical fault. That there is no willful negligent on the part of O.P. and the dispute is due to mechanical failure of the system generated procedure in the Kiosk machine and it prays for dismissal of this case.

To establish the complaint case, complainant has relied upon an affidavit-in-chief sworn by him as P.W.-1 along with some documents. O.P. cross examined the complainant, but did not adduce any O.P.W.

DECISIONS WITH REASONS

The complainant as P.W.-1 in his examination in chief deposed that he paid the bill Sep’14 of Rs.1,591/- plus Rs.9/- in excess, Rs.5,625/- for Dec’14 and Rs.776/- each for Jan’15 & Feb’15. That O.P. refused to accept the bill for Oct’14 and Nov’14 for non-posting the bill of Sep’14, but he was able to deposit the bill for Oct’14 and Nov’14 through the Station Manager. He made such payment up to Feb’15 through Assistant Engineer for such fault ‘Non-posting’ of the bill Sep’14. He denied that O.P. advised not to make further payment for Sep’14 as outstanding. That O.P. did not willfully neglected or harassed but, it is a technical fault in system generated procedure in the Kiosk machine. Therefore, O.P. admits the harassment is due to mechanical fault. In cross examination P.W.-1 also deposed that he made payment of all the disputed bills up to Feb’2015. That problem arose only Sep’14 to Nov’14, when the fact remains that the payment was made through Kiosk (ATM) machine, which developed technical fault. Otherwise he was enjoying electricity uninterruptedly all along.

From the evidence on record and documents filed by the parties, this Forum finds that petitioner has been able to prove that he suffered harassment due to mechanical fault of the Kiosk (ATM) machine. Ld. Lawyer for O.P. therefore argues that petitioner himself admitted in his evidence in chief that there is no willful negligent or harassment by the O.P. to this complainant. The matter was cured by the O.P. through timely intervention of the higher authorities and it took reasonable time to cure the defect, hence the delay is regretted by the O.P.

Though the matter was very nominal and has been properly cured by the O.P. and O.P. argues that it has no other intention to harass the complainant in any way. At the same time the complainant is also a good pay master and he admits mechanical/ technical fault in evidence before this Forum.

However, we also find that there is sufficient harassment of the complainant each and every time he had to run to the Regional Office to make the bills signed by Assistant Engineer before depositing the amount. Even he was imposed with a fine of Rs.400/- though the money was adjusted, as O.P. claimed. Certainly, complainant has undergone mental harassment and also financial loss and loss of his valuable time. He has to knock at the door of justice seeking relief. We, therefore, hold that it will meet the ends of justice if complainant is allowed with a nominal compensation from the O.P./ WBSEDCL.

Fees paid are correct.

Hence it is,

ORDERED

That the case being No.CC-38/15 is allowed on contest against O.P./ WBSEDCL in part directing to pay  compensation of Rs.1,000/- for mental and physical harassment and for financial  loss. O.P. is directed to pay awarded amount within one month of passing of this order, otherwise complainant is at liberty to proceed with law.

Let copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.