Dt.14.08.2015

DEBASIS BHATTACHARYA, PRESIDING MEMBER

          Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order dated 27.05.13 passed by the Ld. District Forum Hooghly in CC No.11/2011, by which the said complaint case has been allowed, the OP thereof has preferred the appeal. 

          It is the case of the Complainant is that he is a bonafide consumer under the OP having two mini deep tubewells, having two electric connections . In respect of one mini deep tubewell,  meter of the OP was installed in the month of February 2007 , but the OP used to issue unmeter bills on average. For which the Complainant protested by filing several applications , but in vain. Further to it , the OP disconnected the connections on 14.12.2010. In respect of the other mini deep tubewell, the Complainant applied on 29.07.2005 for disconnection, which was disconnected. But, after that also , bills were sent by the OP till the month of December, 2008 showing meter reading regularly. Accordingly, the OP be directed to rectify the bill demanded by them and to determine the date of disconnection and to replace the defective meter and to reinstate the electric connection.

          On the other hand, the case of the  OP is that the Complainant is a defaulter and a huge sum is due from him, and as the Complainant has not deposited 50% of the amount claimed by the OP  , he has no right for the relief prayed for.

          It is to be considered if the impugned order suffers from any kind of anomaly or incongruity so as to make an interference in the impugned order.

                              Decision with Reasons

          Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has submitted that the disconnection was effected in 2008. That meter was not giving proper reading , as found going slowly, and bills were raised on average consumption basis. But , the Complainant did not pay the bills regularly. After, 6 months of disconnection , it is deemed to be a permanent disconnection, and so, the Complainant seized  to be a consumer . There is a special remedy before the concerned Grievance Redressal Officer, and billing dispute cannot be adjudicated in the Consumer Fora. Further, the complaint case is also hopelessly barred by limitation.

          Ld. Advocate for the Respondent has submitted that the Respondent has two shallow tubes . It is no ground and tanable also that for the alleged non-installation of software, average bill was being raised by the OP. There has been several correspondences made by the Complainant , but without any good reply. He is a farmer. There is no chit of paper from the side of the OP against the Complainant’s claim. In fact, the Complainant filed all his documents , so the Ld. District Forum has ordered for adjustment by the impugned order.

          It is found that the Ld. District Forum considered the case of the Complainant on the basis of available documents and found that the Complainant had already paid the amount for the months of March, 2008 and November, 2008. In the circumstances, the OP has been directed to give electric connection in respect of Meter No. S.T.W-2025 , subject to payment of outstanding dues of Rs. 17,962/-  - Rs. 10,665/- , which has already been paid, i.e., Rs. 7,297/-. Accordingly, there is no merit in the present appeal , the impugned order is thus upheld in toto, including the cost imposed of Rs. 5,000/- and compensation of Rs. 5,000/- along with interest as ordered.  

                              Hence,

                                        Ordered

that the appeal be and the same is dismissed on contest without cost . The impugned order is hereby affirmed.

          Let a copy of this order along with the LCR be sent to the Ld. District Forum, Hooghly , forthwith.