West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/98/2015

Sri Tulsi Malakar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Station Manager, Amlagola Customer Care Centre - Opp.Party(s)

16 Dec 2015

ORDER

                                                         DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

 

Mrs. Debi Sengupta, Member

 &

 Mr. Kapot Kumar Chattopadhyay

   

Complaint Case No.98/2015

                                                       

Sri Tulsi Malakar………….………Complainant

Versus

Station Manager, Amlagora CCC,WBSEDCL & another……..Opp. Parties.

 

 For the Complainant: Mr. Biswanath Paik, Advocate.

 For the O.P.              : Mr. Swapan Kumar Bhattacharya, Advocate.

 

 

Decided on: - 16/12 /2015

                                

ORDER

                    Mrs. Debi Sengupta, Member- The case of the complainant in a nut shell is that the complainant is a cultivator by profession and is a permanent resident of village Amkopa under Amlagora CCC of W.B.S.E.D.C.L.  The complainant has electric connection Consumer I.D. NO.200629978, B.P.No.13581815 and as a consumer he is paying the Electric Bill regularly.

                  The complainant states that all along the season the consumption of electricity varies and accordingly the complainant paid the electricity bill from 500-2000/- only and   once Rs.6,000/-.

                  The complainant states that suddenly for the month of April,2015 he received an electric bill of Rs.82,041/- from the Ops. Being astonished the complainant went to Amlagora CCC of WBSEDCL, and asked them why such a huge bill has been sent to the complainant. The officer of the center told the

Contd……………….P/2

 

( 2 )

complainant that they will verify the meter and shall do the needful against such inflated bill.

                   Thereafter the officers of the Op-Electric Supply told the complainant to pay at least ¼ of the disputed bill and then they will start the verification and if ¼ of the said bill is not paid the electric connection will be disconnected. Hearing that the complainant is compelled to deposit, the ¼ of the bill amount in the office of the Op. party with the hope that the entire bill matter will be verified and thereafter the exact consumption bill will be paid.

                   The complainant submitted that the Op-department of electric supply did nothing  over this issue. The complainant being the bonafide consumer requested the Op the see the defective bill. But the Opdid not pay any heed to the request of the complainant.

                    Hence, the complainant praying for an order before the Ld. Forum directing the Ops. to pay the compensation and for other reliefs to the complainant.

                    Ops. have contested the case by filing W/O. Denying and disputing the case of the complainant, it is the specific, case of the Ops. that the present complaint case is not maintainable in its present form. The Op. denied all the facts of the petition of the complaint filed by the complainant. The Op. in his W/O mentioned that the bill is generated as per meter reading and the complainant enjoyed the same for their cultivation work and he never challenge or complain for defect meter.

                    Op. submits that as per prayer of the complainant a joint inspection was conducted by the technical team of the Op. in presence of the complainant and it is found that the meter reading was correct.

                   So the complainant allegation on the complaint case is totally false and fabricated.

                   The Op further submits the complainant himself prayed for clear they said outstanding bill by four installments on 24/06/2015 and as per prayer of the complainant Op granted four installments of Rs.22,338/- each.

                    It is thus clear from the documentary evidence that there were no latches or negligence for deficiency of service on the part of the Ops. Regarding the disputed bill it is submitted by the Op. that without any objection that complainant has paid the amount of the bill.

                   The Op. submits that the suit is not maintainable and prays for dismissal of the complaint case.         

Contd……………..P/3

 

 

( 3 )

Point for decision

                     Is the complainant entitled to the reliefs, as prayed for ?

Decision with reasons

                    At the very outset, it is to be mentioned here that neither the complainant not the Op. adduced any sort of evidence either oral or documentary, but they have relied upon some documents although those were not proved as per law. Be that as it may we find that is the main prayer of the complainant in this case for directing the Op. for compensation and other reliefs.

                  Regarding the allegation of inflated electric bill, we find that the Op. has stated that the complainant have never complain for defect of  meter and Op further submits that as per prayer of the complainant a joint inspection was conducted by the technical team of Op in presence of the complainant. It is also submits by the Op that complainant himself prayed for clear they said outstanding ones by four installments and as per prayer Op. granted four installment of Rs.22,338/- each  and the complainant has paid only the 1^st installment. So as per provision suppression of the facts the complainant is not entitled to get any relief.

                In view of that and since we have already found that there  was no deficiency of service or negligence on the part of the Op, so the complainant case must fail and he is therefore, not entitled to get any relief, as prayed for

                                         Hence, it is,

ORDERED

 

                                                                 that the complaint case no.98/2015 is hereby dismissed on contest but in the circumstances without cost.

            

              Dictated & Corrected by me

                             

                         Member                                                       Member