West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/88/2017

Harendra Nath Maity - Complainant(s)

Versus

Station Manager, W.B.S.E.D.C.L. - Opp.Party(s)

Tapas Adhya

01 Nov 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

     Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

and 

Pulak Kumar Singha, Member.

 

Complaint Case No.88/2017

 

             Harendra Nath Maity, S/o Lt. Sisir Maity, At Suknatore, P.S Garhbeta,                              

             District – Paschim Medinipur. ……..……Complainant.

                                                                              Vs.

            Station Manager, W.B.S.E.D.C.L. Chandrakona, Road C.C.C., At Chandrakona Road,

            P.O. Satbankura, P.S. Garhbeta, District- Paschim Medinipur.

                                                                                                 .....……….….Opp. Party.

                                                     

              For the Complainant: Mr. Tapas Adhya, Advocate.

              For the O.P.               : Mr. Swapan Kumar Bhattacharjee, Advocate.

 

Decided on: - 01/11/2017

                               

ORDER

                          Bibekananda Pramanik, President –This consumer complaint u/s 12 of the C.P. Act has been filed by the complainant Sri Harendra Nath Maity against the above named O.P, alleging deficiency in service on their part.

               Complainant’s case, in brief, is as follows:-

               The complainant installed a mini deep tube well for the purpose of cultivation and for running the said deep tube well, he submitted an application for electric connection before the O.P. and the O.P. also gave electric connection to the complainant vides consumer I.D no201188597.  After taking such electric connection, the complainant used to pay bills regularly but subsequently due to financial trouble, he could not pay electric bills in proper time.  Thereafter the complainant received a bill dated 29/01/2016 of Rs.37,926/- and after receiving the same, he paid Rs.19,000/- on 27/02/2016 and thereafter he received  another bill dated 27/02/2016 of Rs.25.125/-  including outstanding dues out of which he paid Rs.2490/- on 18/03/2016.  Thereafter the service connection of

Contd…………………..P/2

 

 

( 2 )

 the complainant was disconnected by the O.P. on 22/03/2016.  Thereafter the complainant received a notice dated 20/09/2016 from the O.P. and by that notice, the O.P. directed the complainant to deposit Rs.32,541/- within 17/10/2016.  The complainant could not deposit the said amount in due time but subsequently on 14/02/2017, he deposited the said amount on the proper receipt.  In spite of that, O.P. did not reconnect the service connection of the complainant. The complainant therefore visited the office of the O.P. on several times and requested the O.P. to reconnect the service connection but the O.P. did not pay any heed to that.  Thereafter the O.P. sent a bill dated 21/03/2017 claiming Rs.27,000/- and after receiving the same, the complainant found that the date of disconnection was written as 18/03/2017 which is not proper.  After receiving such notice, the complainant became astonished and asked the O.P. about such illegal act and requested them to reconnect the service connection and to withdraw the bill dated 21/03/2017 but the O.P. refused to do so.  It is stated with the O.P. is not entitled to claim any amount from the complainant after 22/03/2016.  Hence the complaint, praying for directing to reconnect the service connection to the complainant and to waive the bill dated 21/03/2017 and for an order of compensation of Rs.25,000/- and an award of cost of Rs.10,000/-. 

                  The opposite party-W.B.S.E.D.C.L. has contested this case by filling a written version.  

                   Denying and disputing the case of the complainant, it is the specific case of the opposite party that the O.P. sent a electric bill on 29/01/2016 of Rs.37,926/-  including outstanding of previous bills  of ten months and thereafter the complainant paid Rs.19,000/- on 17/02/2016.  Next energy bill dated 27/02/2016 of Rs.25,125 + previous outstanding dues of Rs.18,936.85/- with L.P.S.C. Rs.2881.67/- was sent but the complainant did not pay the said amount.  Thereafter the O.P. sent another bill of Rs.32,121/- with previous outstanding dues of Rs.25,160/- and as per Electricity Act, the service connection of the complainant was disconnected on 22/02/2016.  After such disconnection, the complainant met the O.P. and the O.P. advised him to pay 50% of outstanding electric bill but the complainant did not pay any heed.  However on 14/02/2017, the complainant deposited Rs.32,710/- but it could not be possible for the O.P. to reconnect the service connection  as it was shown in data basis as deem permanent and it is the settled principal of law of electricity rules that until and unless the complainant further applies for connection by fulfilling all formalities, it is not possible to reconnect the same.  O.P. thereafter visited the premises of the complainant on 20/03/2017 to dismantle the energy meter and found that the complainant was using the electricity from the said meter and as such on 21/03/2017, the O.P. sent a final bill amounting to Rs.27,111/- to the

Contd…………………..P/3

 

 

( 3 )

complainant.  It is stated that the complainant intentionally did not co-operate with the O.P. after such disconnection and violated the rules of the Electricity Act and by suppressing all facts, he has filed a false case.  O.P. therefore claims dismissal of the complaint with cost.

             In this case, neither the complainant nor the O.P. has adduced any evidence, although they were given opportunity to adduce evidence.  However, they have relied upon some documents, so filed by them.

 

                                                                 Points for decision

1. Is the case maintainable in it’s present form and prayer?
2. Is the complainant a consumer under the provision of C.P. Act?
3. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
4. Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs, as sought for?    

                   

Decision with reasons

           Point no.1:-

                 Maintainability of this case has not been questioned at the time of final hearing of this case.  We also do not find anything adverse to hold regarding maintainability of this case.  This point is accordingly decided in the affirmative and in favour of the complainant. 

 

            Point nos. 2 &3:-

                 For the sake of convenience and brevity, both the above points are taken up together for consideration.                       

                          Admittedly the complainant took electric service connection in his mini deep tube

             well vide consumer I.D. no.201188597 from the O.P. and as such he is admittedly a

             ‘consumer’ of the O.P.          

                 Now the question regarding deficiency in service on the part of the O.P,  it is the specific case of the complainant that for his failure to pay the electric bill dated 27/02/2016, his service connection was disconnected by the O.P.  on 22/03/2016 and subsequently he received a notice dated 20/09/2016 from the O.P. thereby claiming Rs.32,541/-.  Complainant deposited the said amount on 14/02/2017 but the O.P. did not reconnect his service connection.  From the petition of complaint itself we find that it is none but the complainant himself has admitted that after taking electric connection, he at first used to pay electric bills regularly but subsequently due to financial trouble, he could not pay bills in proper time.  It is the own admission of the complainant that on 29/01/2016, he received a

Contd…………………..P/4

 

 

( 4 )

 bill of Rs.37,926/- out of which he paid only Rs.19,000/- on 27/02/2016.  It is found from the petition of complaint that thereafter the complaint received another bill on 27/02/2016 of Rs.25,125/- out of which he paid only Rs.2490/- on 18/03/2016 and therefore his service connection was disconnected by the O.P. on 22/03/2016.  Subsequently a notice dated 20/09/2016 was served upon the complainant by the O.P. demanding payment of Rs.32,541/- by 17/10/2016 but the complainant could not pay the said bill in due time and subsequently he paid the said amount on 14/02/2017.  It is also the case of the complainant that thereafter the O.P. sent another bill dated 21/03/2017 claiming Rs.27,000/-.  Nowhere in his petition of complaint, the complainant has stated that he paid the said bill.  However from the petition of complaint, we find that admittedly the complainant failed to pay the entire amount of bill dated 27/02/2016 for which his service connection was disconnected.  Since admittedly the service connection was disconnected for failure to pay the bill amount by the complainant, so it cannot be held that there was any deficiency in service on the apart of the O.P.  That apart, we find that admittedly the amount of last bill dated 21/03/2017 of Rs.27,000/- has not been paid as yet by the complainant.  It is not the case of the complainant that after such disconnection, he submitted any written application for reconnection/restoration of his service connection after clearing his outstanding dues.

               In the above facts and circumstances of the case and the discussions,  made above,  it is held that the O.P. has no deficiency in service in disconnecting the electric service connection of the complainant.

               These two points are accordingly disposed off with the above findings.

            Point no.4:-

  Since the complainant has failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of the O.P., so he is not entitled to get any relief, as prayed for.  However, the complainant is at liberty to apply for new service connection before the O.P. after clearing outstanding dues.

 All the points are accordingly disposed of.

 In the result, the complaint case fails.

                                                           Hence it is,

                                                             Ordered,

                                                              that the complaint case no.88/2017  is hereby dismissed on contest but in the circumstances without cost.

                               Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

                 Dictated & corrected by me

                           

                            President                                 Member                                    President 

                                                                                                                         District Forum

                                                                                                                     Paschim Medinipur