IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No.CC/47/2016.
Date of Filing: 29.03.2016. Date of Final Order: 27.07.2017.
Complainant: Bidhan Roy, S/O Late Ramkinker Roy, Vill. Salu, P.O. Salu, P.S. Salar,
Dist. Murshidabad. Pin 742101.
-Vs-
Opposite Party: Station Manager, WBSEDCL, Salar CCC, P.O. & P.S. Salar, Dist. Murshidabad.
Pin 742401.
Present: Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya …………………. President.
Sri Manas Kumar Mukherjee …………………….. Member.
FINAL ORDER
Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya, Presiding Member.
The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant U/S 12 of the C. P. Act, 1986 praying for changing the name of the Service Connection and to prepare a justified bill for the period from January 2016 of Rs.9837/- for one month.
The complainant’s case, in brief, is that the electric connection No. UT 178 , Meter No. IX 011612 , Consumer No. ID No. 301436077 for sub-mersible Pump of the complainant in the name of his father Ramkinkar Roy. After death of his father he applied for change of name of his father and deposited Rs.49,400/- on 13.10.2007 towards service connection charges. In the year 2015 the complainant noticed that bills are coming in the name of his father then the complainant requested the OP to change the name of Ramkinkar Roy and the OP further advised to deposit service connection of Rs.385/- and security deposit for 3.5 HP of Rs.1750/- totaling Rs.2135, the complainant also deposited the same amount to the OP on 25.03. 2015. The OP did not change the name but sent bill for 1/16 for Rs.9837/-. Again, the complainant requested OP for correction of the instant illegal bill and to change the name but no result. Hence, the instant complaint case.
The Written Version filed by the OP-WBSEDCL , in brief, is that the complainant continued to pay the bill as per meter reading up to December, 15. For non-payment of the bill for 1/16amounting to Rs.9942/- the electric connection was disconnected on 25.6.16 and intimated the same to the complainant in writing but the complainant himself reconnected the same unauthorizedly and is running the pump taking the advantage of the order passed by this Forum on 18.7.16 and for that the complainant is not a bonafide consumer and the complaint is liable to be rejected. Hence, the instant written version.
Considering the pleadings of both parties the following points have been raised for the disposal of the case.
Points for decision.
- Whether the complaint is maintainable in its present form and in law?
- Whether the complainant has any cause of action to file the case.
- Whether the complaint is barred by law of limitation?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for?
- To what other relief/reliefs the complainant is entitled to get?
Decision with Reasons.
Point Nos. 1 to 5.
All the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience.
The instant complaint is for changing the name of the Service Connection and to prepare a justified bill for the period from January 2016.
The complainant’s main case is for change of name of the father of the complainant and place his name in respect of that electric connection.
On the other hand, OP’s main case is that the complainant continued to pay the bill as per meter reading up to December, 15. For non-payment of the bill for 1/16amounting to Rs.9942/- the electric connection was disconnected on 25.6.16 and intimated the same to the complainant in writing but the complainant himself reconnected the same unauthorizedly and is running the pump taking the advantage of the order passed by this Forum on 18.7.16 and for that the complainant is not a bonafide consumer.
To prove the case the complainant has adduced evidence –on-affidavit and the relevant documents in support of this case.
Admittedly, the meter of the complainant is in the name of his father.
The Ld. Lawyer for the OP-WBSEDCL, has advanced argument raising objection that the complainant continuing the electric connection the name of his father unauthorisedly even after death of his father and thereafter applied for regularization of the same but the same is not sufficient and as per rules other formalities are yet to be complied with by the complainant.
He has also advanced argument that for non-payment has been made by the complainant. Moreover, the complainant did not pay the outstanding dues of Rs. 9,942/- for the month of January, 2016.
In this case the complainant has filed 4 original receipts of Rs. 49,400/- for S.C. Charges, Rs. 1750/- for S/D, Rs. 385/- for H.S.C and Rs. 2135/- for changing the name of the electric connection in the name of the complainant in place of their deceased father.
Admittedly, the aforesaid change of name in the name of the complainant has not yet been done. Ld. Lawyer for the OP has advanced argument that the complainant has deposited the amount for such change of name of the service connection in his favour, but the complainant has yet to comply with some formalities as per rules for the purpose.
For absence of any cogent rebuttable evidence from the side of the OP-WBSEDCL for change of name of service connection in favour of the complainant as to deposit of the money for the purpose, we are of view that the complainant is entitled to get relief as to change the name of his deceased father in his favour subject to completion of all the formalities as per rules.
Regarding the dispute in respect of the bill for Rs. 9,942/- for the month of January, 2016 there is no allegation as to the defective meter. Only the ground taken by the complainant for non-payment of the said bill without changing the name of the service connection, is not justified. The complainant has not filed any document to show that he had already paid the said bill and for that the complainant is bound to pay the said outstanding dues.
Considering the above discussions, we are of view that all the points are disposed of in favour of the complainant in part and such the complainant is entitled to get the change of the name of the service connection in his favour in place of his deceased father’s name subject to payment of outstanding dues of Rs.9, 942/- and also compliance of all the formalities as per rules.
Hence,
Ordered
that the Consumer Complaint No. 47/2016 be and the same is hereby allowed on contest in part.
The complainant is directed to pay the outstanding dues of Rs.9942/- and to comply with all the formalities as per rules.
The OP –WBSEDCL is directed to change the name of the service connection in the name of the complainant in place of the name of his deceased father after receiving outstanding dues of Rs. 9942/- and compliance of all the formalities by the complainant with liberal view , as the complainant has already deposited the required fees for this purpose.
The OP is to finish the mutation within one month from the date payment of the outstanding dues and compliance of all the formalities by the complainant, in default, the OP is to pay fine @Rs.50 per day’s delay and the amount so accumulated shall be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account.
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.
