West Bengal

StateCommission

FA/454/2009

Tahidur Rahaman. - Complainant(s)

Versus

S. M. Khargram. - Opp.Party(s)

Kazi Nurul Islam.Mr. Sudip Bose

17 Jun 2010

ORDER


31, Belvedere Road, Kolkata - 700027

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST BENGAL

BHAWANI BHAWAN (Gr. Floor),
FA No: 454 Of 2009
(Arisen out of Order Dated 05/11/2009 in Case No. 67/2008 of District Murshidabad DF , Berhampore)
1. Tahidur Rahaman.S/O Late Jillar Rahaman, Vill- Sherpur. PO.Sahi Sherpur. PS. Khargram, Dist. Murshidabd. ...........Appellant(s)

Versus
1. S. M. Khargram.at Khargram, Murshidabad, West Bengal State Electricity Board 2. A.E. Nabagram, PO & PS. Nabagram, Dist. Murshidabad. W.B.S.E.B.3. D.E. Berhampur. W.B.S.E.D.C.L.PO & PS. Berhampore. Dist. Murshidabad. ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE :
HON'BLE JUSTICE ALOKE CHAKRABARTI PRESIDENTMRS. SILPI MAJUMDER MemberMR. SHANKAR COARI Member
PRESENT :Kazi Nurul Islam.Mr. Sudip Bose, Advocate for the Appellant 1 Mr. P.R. Bakshi , Advocate for the Respondent 1

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

ORDER NO. 10 DT. 17.6.10

HON'BLE JUSTICE MR. A.CHAKRABARTI, PRESIDENT

This is an Appeal against order dt. 5.11.2009 passed by DCDRF, Murshidabad, in Case No. CC/07/2008 whereby the complaint case was dismissed.  The complainant has preferred the present Appeal and his contention is that the OPs have failed to continue electricity supply, which caused loss to the complainant and in the circumstances, the complainant could not pay the dues to the OPs on account of electricity consumption.    As regards deficiency in service on account of insufficiency of electricity supply causing loadshading, no effective case has been made out and, therefore, this aspect is not being considered here.  The only contention raised by the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant/Appellant is that the complainant has showed bonafide paying half of the amount due and, therefore, there is deficiency in service on part of the OPs in not restoring the electricity supply to the complainant.  We are unable to agree with the said contention as in case of keeping the dues unpaid if disconnection takes place and no restoration of supply is made, the OPs cannot be blamed on the ground of deficiency in service.  We do not find any ground for interference with the impugned order and the same is hereby affirmed.  The Appeal is dismissed.

PRONOUNCED :
Dated : 17 June 2010

[HON'BLE JUSTICE ALOKE CHAKRABARTI]PRESIDENT[MRS. SILPI MAJUMDER]Member[MR. SHANKAR COARI]Member