West Bengal

South 24 Parganas

CC/521/2014

1. Mrityunjoy Burman. - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. Utpal Bhattacharjee. - Opp.Party(s)

25 Nov 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPLUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS ,

Amantran Bazar, Kulpi Road, Baruipur, Kolkata - 144

 

C.C. CASE NO. _521   OF ___2014____

 

DATE OF FILING : 27.10.2014                   DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT:  25.11.2016

Present                         :   President       :   Udayan Mukhopadhyay

 

                                        Member(s)    :  Smt.  Sharmi Basu    & Subrata Sarker              

 

COMPLAINANT                   :  Mrityunjoy Burman, Genexx Valley Joka, Tower-34, /10-G, Kolkata – 104.

 

-VERSUS  -

 

O.P/O.Ps                                :     Utpal Bhattacharjee, PCTLA/C Genexx Valley Maintenance, Joka, Diamond Harbour Road, Kolkata – 104.

________________________________________________________________________

 

                                                            J  U  D  G  E  M  E  N  T

 

            Smt. Sharmi Basu, Member

             In a nutshell the case of the complainant is that he is a resident of Genexx Valley ,Joka,T-34/10-G as a tenant of Mr. Raj Kumar Daga,since July 2011. Mr. Utpal Bhattacharjee, the O.P, is the Property Manager , who has stopped sending the Gas bills to his flat for almost one to two years, for which complainant has given letter to the O.P to give the details deposited amount in advance along with the current bills. But the O.P did not pay any heed. Now the complainant is anticipating that the O.P is going to send a bill of huge and misappropriate amount, though  the O.P did not give the detailed bill account of the advance money earlier. Hence, this case praying for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- against the O.P and cost of Rs.10,000/-.  

            The O.P contested the case filing written version ,denying all the allegations leveled against him ,contending inter alia that he is the property Manager of the entire Housing Complex at Joka and complainant is a tenant of a flat of that Housing Complex under Mr. Daga. The positive case of the O.P is that complainant is a continuous source of nuisance in the building as has been complained by his neighbours and complainant despite receiving the monthly bills intentionally did not clear the dues in respect of the gas consumption charges. The O.P submitted that the complainant is a habitual and willful defaulter in making payment of bills and the bills could not be raised for several months due to non-cooperation on the part of the petitioner and the complainant did not allow the staff of the O.P to enter into the flat to take meter reading of the Gas connection. The builder is making loss in order to provide huge subsidies to the maintenance accounts for defaults by residents like the petitioner. Despite that the service could not be stopped being one of the emergency services.  Hence, the O.P prays for dismissal of the case.

Points for Decision

1. Whether the complainant is a Consumer or not.
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps or not.
3. Whether the complainant is eligible to get relief as prayed for partly or fully.

 

Decision with reasons

            All the points are taken together as they are interlinked. 

            It appears from the record and also hearing both the parties that complainant is a defaulter for a long period in respect of payment of monthly bill of Pipeline Gas in question and the complainant has miserably failed to establish his bonafide showing any letter to the O.P for sending relevant bill and/or bills till the date of filing of the present case.  On the other hand Ld. Advocate for the O.P has submitted that the complainant is a habitual and willful defaulter in making payment of bills and complainant intentionally avoided to receive the monthly consumption bill in question. Even complainant did not allow the staff of the O.P to enter into the flat to take meter reading of the Gas connection.

            In the light of the above discussion and considering the complaint, written version and all other documents brought before this Forum by the parties and hearing argument at full length it is observed by this Forum that complainant of the instant case neither paid consumption bill amount for a long period nor has offered to pay the consumption bill to the O.P till the date of filing of the instant case. Therefore, in light of the above observation, neither the complainant is a “Consumer” nor even “intending consumer”  under the definition as prescribed in Section 2(d)(ii) of the C.P Act, 1986 and he is “Defaulter” in the eye of Law.

            Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the complainant is not a “consumer” under the purview of the C.P Act, 19896 and for that the complaint case is barred by section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P Act and he is habitual defaulter in payment for consumption of pipe line gas . Therefore, the instant case is liable to be dismissed.

            Thus, the point no.1 is discussed and the same is against the complainant as there is no positive case in favour of the complainant.

            As the point no.1 is not in favour of the complainant,  other points  for discussion need not be discussed. Thus the complaint case is disposed .

            Hence,

                                                                        Ordered

That the case be and the same is dismissed on contest without cost as the complainant has no positive case in his favour.

Let a plain copy of Judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost as per rule.

 

            Member                       Member                                                                                   President                                 

Dictated and corrected by me

 

 

                        Member

 

 

 

 

The judgement in separate sheet is ready and is delivered in open Forum. As it is ,

                                   

Ordered

That the case be and the same is dismissed on contest without cost as the complainant has no positive case in his favour.

Let a plain copy of Judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost as per rule.

 

Member                       Member                                                                                   President