C.F. CASE No.          :  CC/09/27                                                                                                         

 

COMPLAINANT          :  Bidhan Biswas

S/o. Late Anath Bandhu Biswas

of Vill. Naikura, P.O. Assnnagar,

P.S. Kotwali, Dist. Nadia 

 

       –  Vs.  – 

 

OPPOSITE PARTY             Station Manager,

W.B.S.E.D.C.L. 

Krishnagar Gr. E/S, 

P.O. Majdia, P.S. Krishnaganj,

Dist. Nadia.

 

 

PRESENT             :  KUMAR MUKHOPADHYAY PRESIDENT IN CHARGE  

            :  SMT SHIBANI BHATTACHARYA   MEMBER  

 

DATE OF DELIVERY             

OF  JUDGMENT               :    10th September, 2009

 

 

:    J U D G M E N T   :

 

The  fact of the complainant's case, in a nutshell, is as follows. 

The complainant, Bidhan Biswas, S/o Late Anath Bandhu Biswas has filed this case against the OP, Station Manager, WBSEDCL, Krishnaganj Gr. Electric Supply, P.O. Majdia, P.S. Krishnaganj, Dist. Nadia stating that his father Anath Bandhu Biswas, since deceased, was the consumer of the OP having service connection No. AG/P/2806 and Consumer No. SO – 31042, stating further that electric connection was 

2

taken by his father to run the swallow machine under Kotwali P.S. in Nadia District. 

The said Anath Bandhu Biswas expired on 23.05.02 leaving behind him the complainant and other three as his legal heirs.  The name of the consumer of the said electric connection has not been changed as yet.

The complainant with the permission and taking no objection from other legal heirs, has been using the said electric connection and has been paying electric bills regularly.

The complainant has further stated that the said electric meter being stopped he has been paying average electric bills for several times.  He has stated that he wrote a letter to the OP which was received by the OP office on 13.03.08 under No. 6302 and informing them his inability to pay electric bills in view of the fact inter alia that he did not receive any electricity consumption bills for the long period but he has stated that till today the said meter has not been changed or repaired by the OP.

The complainant received a electric consumption bill from the OP for an amount of Rs. 14923/- in the name of the father of the complainant for the period from May, 07 to January, 09.   OP verbally informed the complainant that in default of payment electric service line would be disconnected.

He stated that the OP had claimed illegally of Rs. 14923/- from the complainant as arrear though the complainant had paid some portion of the bill earlier.   However, under protest vide letter dtd. 23.03.09 the complainant had paid the claim amount in 2 installments one at Rs. 4983/- and other Rs. 9840/-.

The complainant went to OP office on several occasions for redressal of his grievance as to deposit of electric bills under threat by the OP though he had paid some portion of the same amount on earlier occasions, but the OP did not pay any heed to his request.  The complainant had suffered heavy loss financially and harassed mentally by the act of the OP.  The complainant prays for following reliefs:

a) Refund of Rs. 14,983/- received illegally by the OP with interest from 23.03.09 @ 18% 

3

till realization, (b) Payment of Rs. 20,000/- by the OP to the complainant for loss and damages, harassment and mental agony caused to the complaint by the wrongful act of the OP and (c) litigation cost.

 

OP by filing a written version has contested this case denying the material averment of the complainant and admitting that the complainant has paid bills for the period from March, 04 to November, 08 on 17.01.07 for Rs. 19893/- vide receipt No. 25643 and for the period May, 07 to October, 07 on 17.03.09 for Rs. 4983/- by receipt No. 35968.  They stated that the bills dated 17.03.09  were for the period from May, 07 to February, 08 for Rs. 14823/- and the disconnection and reconnection charge was Rs. 100/-.

They further stated that according to the norms of WBSEDCL no bill was raised for the month of April, 07 and the said bill was raised in May, 07 together with a bill of April, 2007 and total amount was for Rs. 3484/- which the complainant paid on 12.07.07.  As subsequently, the bill for May, 07 as raised earlier was deducted wrong  the bill was rectified. 

 

The amount of bill for April, 07 was for Rs. 2822/- and he paid Rs. 3484/- and thus, the excess amount of Rs. 662/- was paid and the amount of rectified bill for May, 07 was for Rs. 1107/- and they adjusted the excess amount of Rs. 662/-.  The concerned office claimed the bill for May, 07 for Rs. 445/-.  So they denied payment of any bill twice excepting the bill for May, 07.   They stated that the OP is not liable to pay compensation to the complainant for his harassment, trouble, probable loss of work, physical inconvenience and mental agony and the prayers of the complainant are vegue, improper and baseless.  The claims of the complainant for refund on Rs. 14983/- with interest as well as for loss and damages for harassment and mental agony to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- are baseless improper and as such the complainant 

4

is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.  The OP prayed that the instant case may be dismissed with cost.

In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case the following points can be taken into account for proper adjudication.

Point No.1:    Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OP as       alleged by the complainant?

Point No.2:    Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for?

 

FINDING WITH REASONS

 

Both the points are taken together for the sake of convenience and for the purpose of avoiding needless repetitions.

Documents on record show that the OP received payment towards electricity consumption bills for the period from 03/2004 to 02/2009 from the complainant from time to time in the manner as stated below.

 

Sl. No. Bill Period Amount (Rs.) Date Receipt No. 

1 03/2004 to 11/2006 19893/- 17.01.07 25643

2 10/2006 to 03/2007 4241/- 31.01.07 26855

3 05/2007 3484/- 12.07.07 43333101(Bill validated)

4 05/2007 to 10/2007 4983/- 17.03.09 35968

5 11/2007 to 10/2008 8936/- 27.03.09 38448

6 11/2008 131/- 27.11.08 43333181(Bill validated)

7 12/2008 to 02/2009 904/- 27.03.09 38449

 

Sl. No. 1 of the above statement shows that the complainant has paid bill for the month of October, 06.  Further Sl. No. 2 shows that the complainant has again paid bill for the month of October, 06.   But the amount of bill could not be ascertained from 

5

the record.  Thus, it appears that for the month of October, 06 the complainant has paid twice.  Further it appears from Sl. No. 3 that the complainant has paid electricity bill for the month of May, 07 for an amount of Rs. 3484/-.  OP has stated that as per norms of the WBSEDCL bill for the April, 07 was not raised.  The said bill was raised in the month of May, 07 together with April, 07.  Total amount was for Rs. 3484/- which  the complainant paid on 12.07.07. As subsequently, the bill for May, 2007 as raised earlier, was detected wrong and the bill was rectified. The amount of bill for April, 2007 was for Rs. 2,822/- and he paid Rs. 3,484/-. Thus the excess amount of Rs. 662/- was paid. The amount of rectified bill for May, 2007 was for 1,107/- and excess amount of Rs.662/- was adjusted. Thereafter, the concerned office claimed the bill for May 2007 for Rs. 445/-.

From the Sl. 1 and 2 above it is palpably clear that the electric consumption bill for the month of October, 06 was paid twice, but the payment for the month of October, 06 could not be ascertained from the record. 

At the time of argument the Ld. Lawyer appearing on behalf of the OP has stated that there are 4 legal representatives of  Anath Bandhu Biswas, since deceased, but the complainant has filed this complaint alone, thus, the case is not maintainable.

The complainant has stated that he is using the electric connection with the permission and after taking “no objection” from the legal heirs.  We are of opinion that it would not be improper to infer that the  case is maintainable in its present from under the provision of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986  

Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case we are of  opinion that the OP is deficient in service by receiving electric bills for the month of October, 06 twice.  

Thus, the case succeeds and the complainant is entitled to get relief.

 

 

6

Considering the facts of the case our considered view is that if an amount  Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand) only is awarded as compensation then that may mitigate the harassment and mental agony of the complainant.  

Hence,

Ordered,

 

That the case be and the same is allowed on contest with cost of Rs. 1000/- (Rupees one thousand) only.

The OP is directed to adjust bill amount, for the month of October, 06 paid extra by the complainant,  with the subsequent electricity bills.

OP is further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) only (Rs. 1,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 1,000/- towards cost) within 40 days from the date of this order failing which the amount will accrue interest @ 8% per annum from the date expiry of 40 days. 

 

Dictated and corrected by me.

 

K. Mukhopadhyay

President-in-Charge 

 

S. Bhattacharya           K. Mukhopadhyay           

                MEMBER           President-in-Charge