C.F. CASE No.                     : CC/10/63                                                                                                                                                                  

COMPLAINANT                 :            Smt. Padmaja Ghosh Chowdhury,

                                                W/o Mohan Ghosh,

                                                Vill. & P.O. Barnia, P.S. Tehatta,

                                                Dist. Nadia

• Vs  –

OPPOSITE PARTIES/OPs:   1)      Station Manager,

                                                            Panchdhara Abhaynagar Gr. Electric Supply,

                                                            W.B.S.E.D.C.L., Vill Palashipara,

                                                            P.O. Palashipara, Dist. Nadia

                                                   2)      Divisional Engineer,

                                                            W.B.S.E.D.C.L.

                                                            P.O. Tehatta, P.S. Tehatta,

                                                            Dist. Nadia

PRESENT                               :     SHRI KANAILAL CHAKRABORTY       PRESIDENT

                      :     SHRI SHYAMLAL SUKUL          MEMBER

DATE OF DELIVERY                                             

OF  JUDGMENT                    :          13^th July,  2011

:    J U D G M E N T    :

            In brief, the case of the complainant is that she is a consumer of electricity under the OP being connection No. 1054 and she enjoys electricity for which she paid the bill amount regularly.  It is her further case that she received a bill dtd. 09.03.10 for the month of March to May-10.  The complainant paid the amount of Rs.894/- for the month of March-10 on 15.03.10 and got a receipt also.  But subsequently, she went to the office of the OP for payment of the bill for the month of April and May-10 on 08.04.10 when the OP demanded outstanding amount of Rs. 921/- for the period 12/2000 to 02/2001 and 06/2001 to 11/2001.   On search she got the money receipts of Rs. 815/- against payment of bills for the period 12/2000, 01/2001, 02/2001, 06/2001 and 09/2001 to 11/2001, but she did not give the payment receipt for the period of 07/01 and 08/01.  As the OPs refused to take the bills for the months of April & May 2010 on 08.04.10 without payment of the outstanding amount as claimed by them, so the OPs threatened to disconnect the service connection.  Therefore, having no other alternative, this case is filed by this complainant praying for the reliefs as stated in the petition of complaint.

            Written version is filed by the OP No. 1 & 2, inter alia, stating that the case is not maintainable its present form and nature.  It is their submission that the OPs never refused to accept the bill amounts for the month of April and May, 2010 as alleged by the complainant.  Rather this complainant never met the OPs stating that he had no dues and outstanding bills were already paid by him.  The complainant is always bound to pay the outstanding bills and so no question of limitation as agitated by the complainant does arise.  They also submit that these OPs are always ready to make correction of the payment subject to submission of payment receipts of bills as shown outstanding in the bill.  So this 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 complaint and the written version filed by the OPs along with the annexed documents filed by the parties and also after hearing the arguments advanced by the ld. lawyers for the parties it is available on record that admittedly the complainant is a consumer with regard to electricity under the OP having connection No. 1054.  It is the specific case of the complainant that the OP declined to accept the bill amount for the month of April & May, 10 on the ground that the complainant had an outstanding amount of Rs. 921/- for the period for 12/2000 to 02/2001 and 06/2001 to 11/2001.  At the time of argument ld. lawyers for both the parties have submitted that the OP has already accepted that the bill amount for the months of April and May, 10 from the complainant.  Even subsequent bill amount is also paid by the complainant.  The only allegation of the complainant is that she paid the outstanding amount of Rs. 921/- for the period of 12/2000 to 02/2001 and 06/2001 to 11/2001.  So this claim of the OP is not correct at all for which she prays to pass an order in support of her claim.  The complainant has filed a money receipt dtd. 05.10.01 which shows that she deposited Rs. 815/- for the bill period 12/2000, 01/2001, 02/2001 and 06/2001 to 11/2001.  So from this document, we find that out of the claim amount of Rs. 921/- she already paid Rs. 815/-.  It is also available on record that no document is filed by the complainant to establish that the balance amount of Rs. 921/- - Rs. 815/- = Rs. 106/- was paid by her at any point of time.  From this document, it also transpires that the due amount for the period of 7/01, 08/01, and 10/01 was not paid by the complainant.  Ld. lawyer for the complainant frankly submits at the time of argument that though the complainant paid this amount she has no document to prove at this moment as she lost the document.  So we find that the outstanding amount is due for the above 3 months i.e., 07/01, 08/01 and 09/01 amounting to Rs. 106/- which the complainant is to pay as she failed to prove that amount is already paid by her.  As per electricity rule it is the duty of the complainant to establish by cogent document that the outstanding amount is already paid by her.  But here we find that the complainant has filed to establish her contention.  Ld. lawyer for the complainant also submits that the claim amount stands for the period of 07/01, 08/01 and 10/01, but the OP has claimed this amount in April, 10.  So it is barred by limitation.  But at the same time we find since the bills of 2007 the OP demanded the said amount as outstanding which is lastly shown in the bill period March to May, 10.  This means that the OP all along demanded the outstanding bill amount which the complainant neither paid nor produced any document before the OP to show her payment.  Therefore, in view of this we hold that this demand of the outstanding amount is not barred by limitation. 

            From the arguments of both the parties it is available that till today the OP has not disconnected the electric connection of the complainant.  It is already found that the OP accepted bill amount for the period of April and May, 10.  At the same time it is established that the complainant is defaulter in payment of outstanding amount of Rs. 106/- for the period of 07/01, 08/01 and 10/01 which she is bound to pay.  Complainant has not filed any document to show that the OP at any point of time threatened to disconnect her connection by serving any notice upon her for nonpayment of outstanding bill amount.  Complainant did not produce any receipt showing before the OP that she paid outstanding amount of Rs. 815/- on 05.10.01.

            In view of above discussions our considered view is that the complainant has no cause of action to file this case.  We do also hold that she has not become able to prove her case and so she is not entitled to get the relief as prayed for.  In result the case fails. 

Hence,

Ordered,

            That the case, CC/10/63 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OPs without any cost.   

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