IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.

CASE No.CC-21/2015.

 Date of Filing:   16.02.2015.                                                                                       Date of Final Order: 12.04.2017.

Complainant: Satinath Roy, S/O Late Gour Gopal Roy, Vill.&P.O. Pashla, P.S. Nabagram,

                        Dist. Murshidabad.  Pin 742184.

-Vs-

Opposite Party: Station Manager, WBSEDCL, Nabagram CCC, P.O.&P.S. Nabagram,

                            Dist. Murshidabad. Pin 742184.

                       Present:   Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya …………………. President.                              

                                       Smt. Pranati Ali                      ……………………  Member.                  

FINAL ORDER

 Smt. Pranati Ali, Presiding Member.

Instant complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of C. P. Act, 1986  is that the complainant prays for direction to the OP to repair/replacing the Transformer immediately and pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation to the complainant after cancellation of the disputed bill.

            The complainant’s case, in brief, is that the complainant is a consumer of OP being Consumer I.D. No. 313131883 for electric connection of his Flour & Oil Mill, which is his only source of income. On 7.12.2014 the Transformer of the locality became out of order. So the mill of the complainant also closed due to lack of electricity and the complainant suffered a huge financial loss. The complainant informed the matter as well as prayed for replacement of the Transformer to the Divisional Manager of WBSEDCL and A.E, Nabagram CCC respectively on 02.01.2015 and 21.01.2015. But both of them were silent which is deficiency in service on the part of the OP. In addition, though the Transformer  remains inactive,  even the OP is sending the bills for such period. So, the complainant came to this Forum for proper redress.

            On the other hand, the OP appeared in this case by filing written version where he denied the allegations of sending baseless bills after 07.12.2014 and or the deficiency in service. The OP stated that the sending bills are computer generated bills as well as a Note sheet was sent to the D.E&D.M, Raghunathganj Division for regeneration of the disputed energy bills. So, the OP has no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and the complaint is liable to be rejected.

            The only point for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OP or not and or whether the complainant is entitled to get relief or not.

                                                           Decision with Reasons.

            Both the parties submitted some documents in support of their case.

            Admitted position of the case is that the complainant is a bona-fide consumer of the OP for the electric connection of his oil Mill and local Transformer became out of order on 7.12.2014. So, the Mill of the complainant also closed due to lack of electricity and the complainant prayed to the OP to replace and or repair the Transformer. Afterwards, without getting no reply from the OP, the complainant filed this case for redress and the OP appeared in this case by filing written version, where he stated that after getting application of the complainant he sent the note sheet to the D.E&D. M , Raghunathganj Division Office to take action on the matter . Later at the time of proceeding the OP stated with submitting some documents that currently the transformer is replaced by a new one and the complainant enjoying electricity to run his mill. The OP further stated that the complainant paid the bill and said unit (1643) was adjusted in the next bill. For that current reading as on 06.03.2017 is 153770 units and up to 152504 units were charged for bill month of February, 2017. All those statements of the OP were evident by the submitted documents.

            On the basis of above discussions and materials on record, we are of the view that though the OP make everything normal through a process, but he took more than two years after getting information of the matter, which is emergency in the daily life of the people, specially  who earns with the help of that electricity. As a service provider the OP should alert to know the incident by himself, though the complainant informed the matter but the OP did not pay heed on it, which is a clear example of deficiency in service.

            We are of the opinion that the grievance of the complainant stands redressed after a long wait for more than two years which is not desirous to the Forum.  So, the complainant is entitled to get a meager amount of compensation for Rs.2000/- from the OP for the harassment of the complainant.

            Hence,

                                                                 Ordered

that the Consumer Complaint No. 21/2015 be and the same is hereby allowed on contest. 

            The grievance of the complainant has already been redressed.

            The OP is directed to pay Rs.2000/- as compensation for harassment to the complainant and the said amount is to be adjusted from the energy bill for the month of June, 2017 of the complainant, in default, the OP is to pay fine @ Rs. 50/- per day for each days’ delay and the amount so accumulated shall be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account.

            There will be no order as to cost.

Let a plain copy of this order be made available and be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties on contest in person, Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand under proper acknowledgment / be sent forthwith under ordinary post  to the concerned parties as per rules, for information and necessary action.