C.F. CASE No.                    :  CC/10/54                                                                                                                                           

COMPLAINANT                  :           Subal Chandra Das

                                    S/o Late Kanailal Das

                                    Vill. Chapra,

                                    P.O. & P.S. Kaliganj, Dist. Nadia

• Vs  –

OPPOSITE PARTY/OP        :          Station Manager,

                                    Debogram Group Electric Supplier,

                                    Vill & P.O. Debogram, P.S. Kaliganj,

                                    Dist. Nadia. 

PRESENT                               :     SHRI KANAILAL CHAKRABORTY       PRESIDENT

                      :     SHRI SHYAMLAL SUKUL          MEMBER

DATE OF DELIVERY                                             

OF  JUDGMENT                    :          24^th September,  2010

:    J U D G M E N T    :

            In brief, the case of the complainant is that he is a consumer under the OP electricity authority being consumer No. S020858.  It is his further case that he has a shallow machine and he is enjoying electricity for running the said machine from the month of January to April every year for the purpose of cultivation of boro paddy in his land.  For the rest months of the year the machine is not used.  In spite of that the OP sent electric bill for the other months more or less equal amount as the month of Januargy to April.  On 26.08.08 and on 21.12.09 he made complaint to the OP regarding this, but to no effect.   For the period from 17.10.08 to 30.10.09 the meter connection was stopped due to failure of transmitter.  As the OP did not settle the dispute in spite of his complaint on 21.02.09 regarding the anomaly of the electric bills, so having no other alternative this case is filed praying for the reliefs as stated in the petition of complaint. 

            The OP, Station Manger, Debagram Group Electricity Supply has filed a written version in this case, inter alia, stating that the case is not maintainable according to law.  He has denied all the allegations made by the complainant in the petition of complaint.  Rather it is his specific submission that this complainant is a consumer under this OP who had a service connection No. 020858.  The meter of the said connection was burnt on 01/2009 and the bill was raised up to 01/09 and another new meter was installed on 02/2009 bearing No. SL No. RSX 27272 and bill was raised from the said meter from 5/09 to till date.  As the previous meter was burnt, so no energy bill was claimed by this OP for the period from 02/09 to 04/09.  He also submits that no energy bill was claimed for the period from 17.10.08 to 30.10.09.  It is not correct that the meter reader did not give information to the complainant nor the meter was checked by him.  It is his submission also that meter reading of TOD (time of day) was taken by the meter reading instrument, i.e., computerized system only for STW and no manual reading could be taken for the reason and the energy bills were prepared as per meter reading.  So there is no scope of refund as prayed for.  So the complainant has no cause of action to file this case and the same is liable to be dismissed against him. 

POINTS  FOR  DECISION

Point No.1:         Has the complainant any cause of action to file this case?

Point No.2:          Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for?

DECISION  WITH  REASONS

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

            On a careful perusal of the petition of the complaint along with the annexed documents filed by the complainant and the written version filed by the OP, it is available on record that this complainant is a consumer of electric connection under the OP bearing No. S020858 which is also admitted by the OP.  The complainant’s specific case is that he is enjoying electricity from the month of January to April in each year for the purpose of cultivation of boro paddy in his land and no current is consumed by him for other months of the year as no cultivation is done within that period.  But to that extent, neither any oral nor any documentary evidence is adduced by the complainant.  He has submitted some bills.  Perused the bills annexed herewith.  At ‘para-5’ of the petition of complaint he has also stated about bill amount of the different months from which we find that even in the month of December, 08 the bill amount was raised up to Rs. 555/- and in January, 09 it was only Rs. 250/- and even in the month of June, 09 it was only Rs. 294/-.  In January, 10 the bill amount was only Rs.88/- and in November, 09 it was Rs. 826/- and December, 09 it was Rs. 151/-.   Besides this from the side of the OP it is argued and submitted that all the bills were prepared on the spot by using computerized instrument after examining the reading of the meter.  No where in the complaint it is stated by the complainant that his meter is defective.  Besides this it is agitated by the complainant that his meter was burnt and for that period heavy amount was charged by the OP.   From the written version we find that meter was burnt and during that period no energy bill was claimed by the OP and after installation of the new meter bills were charged by the OP.  The annexed bills submitted by the complainant speak also that. 

Therefore, on a careful perusal of the fact of this case along with the annexed documents and after hearing the arguments advanced by the ld. lawyers for the parties our considered view is that the complainant has failed to prove the case in his favour.  So he is not entitled to get the relief as prayed for.  In result the case fails. 

            Hence,

Ordered,

            That the case, CC/10/54 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OP without any cost.

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