This is a case U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the prayer directing the O.P. to refund Rs.1,033/- as collected bill in the month of October, 2012 with interest, Rs.10,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental pain, to issue fresh bills deducting last payment surcharge, to pay Rs.1,000/- per month and cost of the suit.

The case of the complainant in short is that the complainant is a consumer under Raiganj Group Electric Supply, W. B. S. E. D. C. L. vide consumer ID No.432087859. The O.P. inadvertently received Rs.1,960/- as bill amount for the month of October, 2012 instead of actual bill stands of Rs.933/- which was excess of Rs.1,027/-. The complainant visited the office of the O.P. with a request to refund the excess bill amount or adjust the said amount on the next bill but the O.P. did not pay heed to the claim of the complainant. Finding no alternative the complainant was forced to come before this Forum.

The O.P. contested the case by filing W.V. denying the allegations of the complainant stating inter alia that the case is not maintainable, the case is barred by limitation, the complainant paid the bill for the period of September, 2012 and October, 2012 at a time, no excess payment was made by the complainant, the case will be dismissed with cost.

DECISIONS WITH REASONS

To establish the case of the complainant has relied upon an affidavit in chief sworn by him, photocopies of electric bills for the month of October, 2012 to December, 2012 and July, 2013 to September, 2013, payment receipt of Rs.1,960/- and photocopies of letters.

We carefully perused the contents of the petition of complaint, documentary evidences on record, W.V. and argument advanced by the Ld. Lawyers for the both sides.

It reveals from the photocopy of bill for the month of October, 2012 Rs.933/- was due on the date 19.10.2012 but in the payment receipt copy dated 02.11.2012 it appears that the bill of Rs.1,960/- was paid for the month of October, 2012 out of bill amount 1,961/-. The complainant did not produce the payment receipt for the period of bill Jul’12 to Sep’12 from where clear picture would comes out whether there were at all any dues for the month Jul’ 12 to Sep’12 or not. The complainant submitted the photocopies of bill for the month Oct’12 to Dec’12 and Jul’13 to Sep’13 wherein both the bills the O.P. has admitted to receive payment of Rs.1,960/-. The O.P. stated in the W.V. that the O.P. raised the bill for the month Jul’12 to Sep’12 but the complainant paid only the bill for the month of Jul’12 and Aug’12 as such the bill for the month of Sep’12 was remain unpaid by the complainant. Thereafter the O.P. raised another quarter bill for the month of Oct’12 to Dec’12 but the bill amount for the month of Sep’12 was due. The O.P. also stated that the petitioner was paid the said amount of Rs.1,960/- as the bill for the month of Sep’12 and Oct’12 jointly. It also reveals from the bill for the month of Jul’13 to Sep’13 that outstanding Rs.3,981.04 was/is due for the period of Oct’12 to Jun’13.

The complainant never established the excess payment amount of Rs.1,027/- as bill for the month of Oct’12 by way of submitting any document rather it reveals from his statement in the complaint petition and photocopies of the bill that the bill amount from the month Nov’12 to till date is remain unpaid from the side of the complainant.

In view of the discussions above we are of opinion that the O.P. was/is no negligence or deficiency in service on their part rather the complainant is unable to prove his case.

Accordingly the case of the complainant fails.

Fees paid is correct.

Hence, it is

ORDERED,

that the complaint case No. CC-54/2013 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the O.P. without cost.

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