C.F. CASE No.          : CC/09/41                                                                                                         

 

COMPLAINANTS             : 1) Jhunu Rani Basak,

W/o Late Pran Gopal Basak

 

              2) Goutam Basak,

S/o Late Pran Gopal Basak

 

              3) Santu Basak,

S/o Late Pran Gopal Basak

 

All, Vill. Bethuadahari, Sation Road,

P.O. Bethuadahari, P.S. Nakashipara,

Dist. Nadia.

 

 

       –  Vs  – 

 

 

OPPOSITE PARTY/OP         :  Station Manager,

Bethuadahari Group Electric Supply,

Vill. + P.O. Bethuadahari,

P.S. Nakashipara, Dist. Nadia.

 

 

 

PRESENT              :  KANAILAL CHAKRABORTY             PRESIDENT

        :  KUMAR MUKHOPADHYAY          MEMBER

        :  SMT SHIBANI BHATTACHARYA       MEMBER  

DATE OF DELIVERY             

OF  JUDGMENT               :    30th October, 2009.

 

 

:    J U D G M E N T    : 

 

       

In brief, the case of the complainants is that they are the heirs of late Pran 

Page 2  of 6

Gopal Basak in whose name there was a electric connection bearing No. B/C/922 (Con. No. A-042785).   That Pran Gopal Basak filed a case before this Forum against this OP vide case No. C.F. 48/97.  In that case this Forum passed an order on 25.11.98 directing him to deposit 25% of the bill amounting to total Rs. 99,212.13.   Against that judgment said Pran Gopal Basak preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble State Commission which was ultimately dismissed for default.   As per direction of this Forum said Pran Gopal Basak deposited 25% of the bill amount, i.e., Rs. 24,803.03  before the OP vide receipt No. C/04/99/094165 dtd. 22.10.01.   Thereafter, he filed an appeal before the Hon'ble High Court, Kolkata and the Hon'ble Court directed the electrical inspector to take decision on this point.  The electrical inspector decided that Pran Gopal Basak had to pay Rs. 2130.69 for the months of September, October and November, 1997.   But Pran Gopal Basak already paid that amount by depositing Rs. 24,803/- before the OP.  Thus he deposited excess amount of Rs. 22,672.31 before this OP.  On 16.04.04 Pran Gopal Basak expired.  Prior to his death he sent letters to the OP requesting to refund the excess amount but to no effect.  Thereafter, the present petitioners being his heirs requested the OP several times to refund the excess amount, but no step was taken on the side of the OP.   Finally, on 27.05.09 the OP declined to repay the excess amount when the petitioners demanded to refund the said amount.  Having no other alternative the petitioners have filed this present case with a prayer to direct the OP to refund the excess amount of Rs. 22,672.31 along with interest and compensation.

The OP has contested this case by filing a written version, inter alia, stating that the case is not maintainable in its present form and nature.  It is also agitated that the case is barred by limitation also.  From the written version it is available that late Pran Gopal Basak had one electric connection under the OP and against that connection one bill amounting of Rs. 99,212.13  was issued in his name against which he filed a case before this Forum.    It is also admitted that the Forum 

Page 3  of 6

directed him to deposit 25% of the bill amount and accordingly said Pran Gopal Basak deposited 24,803.03 before the OP.    This OP also submits that Pran Gopal Basak preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble State Commission against the judgment passed by this Forum which was dismissed for default.   But the said Pran Gopal Basak did not pay the balance 75% amount though notice was served upon him to pay the said amount.  Rather he appealed before the Hon'ble High Court against that notice and the Hon'ble Court passed an order on 13.09.03 directing the Electrical Inspector to dispose of the matter within one month since the date of passing order.  Chief Electrical Inspector after examining the bills for the month of September, October and November, 09 calculated the amount at Rs. 2110.69 for those months.  That bill was sent to the consumer who did not pay the bill.  Rather he demanded to refund the excess deposit amount from the opposite party though this claim is barred by limitation.  The present petitioners did not comply with the order passed by the District Forum on 25.11.98 which is strictly in force.  So they are not at all entitled to claim for refund of Rs. 22,672.31 with interest.  Hence, they have no cause of action and the same is liable to be dismissed with costs.  

 

POINTS  FOR  DECISION

 

Point No.1: Is the claim of the petitioners barred by limitation?

Point No.2:         Are the petitioners entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for?

Point No.3:      Are the petitioners become able to prove their claim?

 

DECISION  WITH  REASONS

 

All the points are taken up together for discussion as they are interrelated and for the sake of convenience. 

Page 4  of 6

After a carefully perusal of the petition of complaint and the written version along with the annexed documents filed by the parties, it is available on record that one, Pran Gopal Basak had the electric connection bearing No. B/C/922 (Con. No. A-042785) under the OP.  It is also admitted by both the parties that the OP issued a bill in favour of said Pran Gopal Basak for the months of September, October and November, 1997 amounting to Rs. 99,212.13 against which Pran Gopal Basak filed a C.F. Case before this Forum and the Forum directed him to deposit 25% of the bill amount subject to determination of the bill by the Chief Electrical Inspector.  Accordingly, said Pran Gopal Basak deposited Rs. 24,803.03 vide receipt No. C/04/99/094165 dtd. 22.10.01 which is not denied by the OP also.   Pran Gopal Basak preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble State Commission against the judgment passed by this Forum which was ultimately dismissed for non-prosecution.  Thereafter, the OP served a notice upon Pran Gopal Basak directing him to deposit the balance 75% amount of the bill and against that notice, Pran Gopal Basak filed a revision petition before the Hon'ble High Court vide No. W.P. 17870 (W) of 2002.  The Hon'ble Court passed an order directing the Electrical Inspector to dispose of the matter within a period of one month since the date of communication of the order and also passed order to the effect that respondent authorities to recover the amount that may be due from the petitioner after determination by the Electrical Inspector.  From the documents filed by the parties it is also available on record that the Chief Electrical Inspector passed an order to the effect, “The month of September, October and November, 1997 bills claimed by WBSEB in favour of Pran Gopal Basak, Railbazar Station Road, Bethuadahari, Nadia is not correct.  The bill should be raised on the average consumption basis of 200 units per month, i.e., total 600 units for the months of September, October and November, 1997 which is only payable by the consumer.” (Annexture. - E ).   

 

Page 5 of 6

After perusal of this order passed by the Chief Electrical Inspector and considering the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court, we find that  Pran Gopal Basak had actually to pay Rs. 2110.69 against the disputed bill for the month of September, October and November, 1997 in which the bill amount was 99,212.13.  It is on record that Pran Gopal Basak already deposited Rs. 24,803.03 before the OP as 25% of the bill amount as per direction of the Forum.   Naturally,  Pran Gopal Basak did not require to pay any further amount of the disputed bill as he already paid Rs. 24,803.03.   He was not also liable to pay the balance 75% amount of the disputed bill as raised by the OP.   Rather we find that Pran Gopal Basak deposited excess amount of Rs. 22,672.31, i.e., (24,803.03 – 2130.69 ).   So the OP is bound to refund that amount to Pran Gopal Basak.   Pran Gopal Basak expired in 2004 and prior to his death he sent so many letters to the OP requesting him to refund the balance amount deposited by him.  Copy of those letters are marked as 'Annexture - 2, 3 & 5'.   But the OP did not dispose of those letters.  Nor he repudiated the claim of Pran Gopal Basak.  The present petitioners who are the legal heirs of late Pran Gopal Basak also placed their claim before the OP several times as per statement made in the petition of complaint.   There is no denial on the side of the OP that they did not place any claim before the OP to refund excess amount deposited by late Pran Gopal Basak.   Even the claim of the present petitioners was not disposed of or repudiated by this OP.   It is the duty of the OP to settle the claim of the petitioners, but he has not performed his duty.  Rather he agitates that the claim is barred by limitation.  But considering the facts of this case we find that as the OP did not officially repudiate the claim of either late Pran Gopal Basak or the present complainants, so no question of limitation does arise in this case because the cause of action is continuing since the time of late Pran Gopal Basak.   

After a careful consideration to the facts and circumstances of this case and  hearing  the  arguments  advanced  by  the  ld.  lawyers  for both the parties our 

Page 6  of 6

considered view is that the complainants have become to able to prove their case that they are entitled to get refund of Rs. 22, 672.31 from the OP.   We also hold that they are also entitled to get compensation due to harassment caused to them and also cost.  In result the case succeeds.

Hence,

Ordered,

That the case, CC/09/41 be and the same is decreed against the OP on contest.  The complainants are entitled to get refund of Rs. 22,672.31 from the OP along with compensation of Rs. 5,000/- + Rs. 2,000/- as litigation cost, thus, in total Rs. 29,772.31 (Rupees twenty nine thousand seven hundred seventy two and thirty one paisa).  The OP is directed to make payment of the decretal dues to the complainants within a period of two months since the date of passing this order, in default the complainants are entitled to get interest upon the decretal dues @ 8% per annum since this date till the date of realization of the full amount.   

Let a copy of this order be delivered to the parties free of cost.