IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.

                CASE No.  CC/47/2020.

 Date of Filing:                    Date of Admission:            Date of Disposal:

   03.03.20                                    02.07.20                                    01.03.23

Complainant: Shyam Baski

S/O Late Vim Baski, Vill-Sanskar Dighidanga,

PO-Govindapur, PS-Berhampore, Pin-742405

-Vs-

Opposite Party:  S.M. WBSEDCL, Goaljan CCC

Uttarpara More, P.O-Radharghat,

 PS-Berhampore, Pin-742187

Agent/Advocate for the Complainant                    : Shyamalima Sarkar

Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party                : S.S. Dhar

   Present:    Sri Ajay Kumar Das………………………….......President.     

         Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………..Member.

         Sri. Nityananda Roy……………………………….Member.

FINAL ORDER

   Sri.ajay kumar das, presiding member.

This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.

             One Shyam Baski (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against Station Manager, WBSEDCL, Goaljan CCC (here in after referred to as the OP) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.

The material facts giving rise to file the complaint are that:-

                 The Complainant is an Indian citizen. He resides at Sanskar Dighi Danga, PO-Govindapur, PS-Berhampore, Dist-Murshidabad, Pin-742405. The Complainant is a consumer under the OP since 1917, and his consumer ID No. is 302346312.

                 After getting electric connection from the OP, OP sent bills to the Complainant regularly and the Complainant paid the said bill in the office of the OP. It is required to be mentioned here that though meter reading card has been supplied to the Complainant but the meter reader has not been mentioning in meter reading the consumption of electricity by the Complainant.

                 On all a sudden the OP without taking the meter reading sent a bill amounting to Rs. 30,260/-. The said amount is not only highly excessive but also fictitious one. The Complainant never consumed such electricity which has been mentioned in the bill. The bill has been prepared by the OP according to their whimsical act..

                 The Complainant is a poor man and schedule Tribe Holder. His house is very small one and so there is no provision for the said consumption which has been mentioned in the impugned bill.

                 After receiving the said bill the Complainant wrote a letter to the OP for the reconsideration of the said bill and also requested to take meter reading and to prepare a fresh bill according to the consumption by the Complainant which would be appeared in the meter. Though the Complainant requested in writing to send the fresh bill but the OP did not pay any heed to that effect. On the other hand the OP tried to disconnect the connection of the Complainant. The Complainant submits that the OP has no right to disconnect the service line as the OP did not reconsider the prayer of the Complainant.

                 If the service line of the Complainant would be disconnected the Complainant will face irreparable loss and injury which can not be compensated by any means. The Complainant is using the electric power for his livelihood and it is also domestic purpose. It is not possible for the Complainant to give such an amount which has been mentioned in the bill. It is also a deficiency of service on the part of the OP.

                 As the OP did not take care about the prayer of the Complainant, the Complainant is bound to file this case for getting the proper relief from your honour’s end and prays for recalling the impugned bill and to send fresh bill after taking meter reading which is appeared in the meter and to pass an order of Rs. 50,000/- for the harassment made by the OP.

                 OP is contesting the case by filing written version stating inter alia that the case is not maintainable. OP further states that the meter works normally with correct reading of 6480 units (KWH) as on 12.12.20. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP. The OP prays for dismissal of the instant case.

     On the basis of the complaint and the written versions the following points are framed for proper  adjudication of the case :

Points for decision

1. Isthe Complainant a consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?

2. Has the OP any deficiency in service, as alleged?

3. Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?

Decision with Reasons:

Point no.1

The point no. 1 is taken up for decision. The Complainant has stated in his complaint that he is a consumer under the OP since 1917 and his consumer Id No. is 302346312.

The point to be noted is that 21.02.23 was fixed for hearing of argument but none appeared on behalf of the Complainant. Though Ld. Advocate for the OP was present but he did not raise any objection regarding this point. Such being the position and considering the materials on record, we are of the view that the Complainant is a consumer under the OP. The said point is thus decided in favour of the Complainant.

    Point Nos.2 & 3

                 Both the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity of discussion. The Complainant has stated in his complaint that on all a sudden the OP without taking the meter reading sent a bill amounting to Rs. 30,260/-. The said amount is not only highly excessive but also fictitious one. The Complainant never consumed such electricity which has been mentioned in the bill. The bill has been prepared by the OP according to their whimsical act. We peruse the materials on record. The letter dated 16.10.19 written by the Complainant Shyam Baski addressed to the Station Manager clearly shows that the meter reader took out the electric bill on spot. Such being the position, the allegation regarding the whimsical act on the part of the OP is not tenable.

                 Ld. Adv. for the OP submits before this Commission that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP by raising the bill which was prepared by the meter reader at the spot, particularly when there is no allegation regarding the defect of meter.

                 Considering the facts and circumstances of the fact we are of the view that the deficiency in service on the part of OP is not established and as such the instant case is liable to be dismissed.

Reasons for delay

The Case was filed on 03.03.20 and admitted on 02.07.20. This Commission tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act,1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day orders.

     In the result, the Consumer case fails.

     Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is

                                                            Ordered

that the complaint Case No. CC/47/2020 be and the same is dismissed on merit  against the OP.

             Let plain copy of this order  be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand  /by post under proper acknowledgment  as per rules, for information and necessary action.

The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:

    confonet.nic.in

Dictated & corrected by me.

President

Member                                                     Member                                        President.