IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No.CC 27/2017
Date of Filing: 14/03/2017 Date of Final Order: 18/07/2018
Complainant: Sri Badal Kumar Mondal, S/O Late Fani Bhusan Mondal,
Vill. Gangarampur, P.O. Joy Krishnapur+ Gangarampur,
P.S. Nabagram, Dist. Murshidabad, Pin 742187.
-Vs-
Opposite Party: Station Manager Superintendent, Nabagram Station,
WBSEDCL, P.O.&P.s. Nabagram, Dist. Murshidabad,
Pin 742187.
Agent/Advocate for the Complainant : Mrs. Sumana Sinha.
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party : Sri Siddhartha Sankar Dhar.
Present: Sri Asish Kumar Senapati………………….......... President.
Smt. Chandrima Chakraborty ……………………..Member.
FINAL ORDER
Sri Ashish Kumar Senapati President.
This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act 1986.
One Sri Badal Kr. Mondal (here in after referred to as the complainant) filed this case against the Station Manager Superintendent, Nabagram Station, WBSEDCL(here in after referred to as the OP) alleging deficiency in service.
The sum and substance of the complaint case may be stated as follows:-
The complainant installed a submersible pump for irrigation of his agricultural land on 12.12.2007 and applied for electricity connection for the same. The complainant informed the OP about theft of electrical wire of his connection and ultimately the OP gave electric connection on 28.12.2009 and the OP was requested to issue bill for consumption of electricity. Lastly the OP issued a bill on 22.02.2010 and the complainant paid the amount of the bill. That on 09.07.2014 the OP disconnected the electric connection of the complainant without any notice and the OP did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant for giving reconnection of electricity. Thereafter on 25.04.2016 the OP issued a bill and asked the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.39374/- after deducting the bill of locked period. On 29.04.2016 the complainant paid a sum of Rs.12000/- and a sum Rs.1000/- for disconnection reconnection charge and the outstanding as on 13.01.2017 and also paid a sum of Rs.100/- for disconnection and reconnection charge. The OP threatened the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.7000/- for the bill of locked period though the complainant is always willing to pay the bill according to the consumption. But the OP also claimed LPSC including interest. The complainant has prayed for a direction upon the OP to issue fresh bill indicating units consumed by him and not to disconnect the line till disposal of the case and to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- for cost and Rs.20,000/- for compensation.
The OP received notice on 21.03.2017 and filed Written Version on 14.09.2017 inter alia denying the allegations raised against the OP contending that the complaint is not maintainable as this Forum has no jurisdiction to deal with such type of dispute. It is the specific case of the OP that the complainant is not a consumer under the OP having STW connection and he was always negligent in payment of electricity charges.
It has been asserted that the LPSC has been charged amounting Rs.26, 296/- as the complainant paid the amount after due date and the total dues was Rs.33694.64. The complainant is a defaulter in payment of electricity charge and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
Upon the above version of both sides, the following points are framed for the proper adjudication of the case.
Points for Decision
- Is the complainant a ‘consumer’ in terms of the provisions of the C. P. Act 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?
- Has the OP deficiency in service, as alleged by the complainant?
- Is the complainant entitled to get relief/reliefs, as prayed for?
Decision with Reasons
Point No.1
Ld. Advocate for the complainant submits that the complainant is a consumer of the OP and the OP disconnected the supply of electricity on 09.07.2014 without any notice.
In reply the Ld. Advocate for the OP submits that the complainant is not a consumer in terms of the Consumer Protection Act.
Having gone through the submission of the Ld. Advocates of both sides and on perusal of the Written Complaint, Written Version, Evidence and the documents filed by both parties, we find that the complainant is a consumer of the OP. Hence, the point is decided in favour of the complainant.
Point No.2
Ld. Advocate for the complainant submits that this Forum has both territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the case.
On going through the materials on record, we find that there is a consumer dispute between the complainant and the OP and this Forum has both territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
Point Nos.3&4
The Ld. Advocate for the complainant submits that the complainant is a bona fide consumer of electricity and the OP disconnected the supply of electricity on 09.07.2014 for which the complainant paid a sum of Rs.12000/- on 29.04.2016 and paid a sum of Rs. 100/- for disconnection -reconnection charge and paid outstanding dues on 13/01/2017 and paid a sum of Rs.100/- for disconnection reconnection charge and subsequently the OP disconnected the electricity again and electric connection was restored in view of order passed by this Forum on 16.03.2017. He submits that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP and the OP may be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation and Rs. 3000/- as litigation cost. It is urged that the O.P. has no ground to impose LPSC.
In reply Ld. Advocate for the OP submits that the complainant is a consumer of electricity and the OP disconnected the electric line due to non-payment of electric bills. It is argued that the complainant paid the dues after a long span of time, so, as per rules, LPSC had been charged amounting Rs.26,296/- and the total dues was Rs. 33694.64. It is submitted that the OP has no deficiency in service.
On a careful consideration of the materials on record, we find that the complainant was not regular in payment of electricity bills and therefore we find no reasons to direct the OP to waive LPSC. It is clear from the submission of both sides that the service connection of the complainant was disconnected without serving any notice which is nothing but deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we think that the complainant may be compensated by allowing him to make payment of his entire dues including LPSC by 6 monthly installments and the OP may be directed not to disconnect electricity connection of the complainant without serving notice as per rules.
In the result complaint case succeeds.
Cause for Delay
This case was filed on 14.03.2017 and was admitted on 16.03.2017. This Forum has tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of Section 13(3A) of the CP Act, 1986 and the Cause of delay is also explained in day to day orders.
Fees paid are correct.
Hence,
Ordered
that the Consumer Complaint No. 27/2017 be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP without cost.
The OP is directed to issue a fresh bill (up to date) in favour of the complainant within one month (30 days) by allowing him to pay the entire dues including the LPSC by 6 monthly installments and the OP is also directed not to disconnect the electric line of the complainant without serving notice in accordance with rules.
Let plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand /by post under proper acknowledgment as per rules, for information and necessary action.
The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:
confonet.nic.in
