IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC /45/2014.
Date of Filing: 08.04.2014. Date of Final Order: 17.02.2016.
Complainant: Md. Jamiruddin Sk. S/O Lekhandar, Vill. Ramnabaro Khuri, P.O. Sarmantapur,
P.S. Salar, Dist. Murshidabad.
-Vs-
Opposite Party: Station Manager, WBSEDCL, Salar, P.O.&P.S. Salar, Dist. Murshidabad.
Present: Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya ………………….President.
Sri Samaresh Kumar Mitra ……………………..Member.
Smt. Pranati Ali ……….……………….……………. Member
FINAL ORDER
Smt Pranati Ali, Presiding Member.
Brief fact of the complainant’s case u/s 12 of C.P. Act, 1986, is that the complainant /Md. Jamiruddin Sk is a consumer of the OP/Station Manager, WBSEDCL, Salar with an electric connection for his submersible pump to irrigate his land for cultivation. The complainant received the bill for the month of July, 2013 amounting to Rs.63, 499/- which is absurd according to the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant informed and requested to the OP to rectify the said bill, but the OP did not pay any heed to the matter, rather disconnected the said service connection without serving any notice. This disconnection creates a big trouble in the family of the complainants because the source of earning of the complainant has been stopped. The OP also sent the bills to the complainant accordingly which is a gross negligence on the part of the OP. So, the complainant compelled to come to this Forum for proper redress.
On the other hand, the OP appeared in this case by filing written version where he denied the allegation of sending an inflated bill amounting to Rs.36, 499/- for the months of July, 2013 and sent bills even after disconnection and or deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The OP also stated that the complainant has a submersible pump since 01.01.2011 and the first time bill for the month of July 2013 was sent for 18000 units i.e 6000x3 to the complainant by the OP. The said bill was prepared on flat rate as because the connection was for submersible pump. The complainant did not pay any bill amount. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
The only point for consideration is that whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OP or not and or whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief or not.
Decision with reasons.
It is pertinent to mention that the complainant has submitted some documents in support of her case.
Perused all the documents in the record. We observed that the disputed bill for the month of July, 2013 was prepared and sent by the OP to complainant is an admitted position. But two points are not clear to us, first is that the printed bill shows the amount of Rs.63, 499/- where as the OP w rote Rs.36, 499/- in his written version which may be by mistake. The second point is that the consumed units in the disputed bill was 18000 units, where as the said bill shows the present reading is 6000 units. The OP also mentioned in his written version that since installation till billing date was 18000 units, but in breaking he shows that 6000x3= 18000 units. At the time of hearing the OP explained that it is a three phase meter. So, the units multiply by three makes the total units as well as due to disconnection other months’ bills are not above the consumption units. So on that point the OP has no deficiency in service. The complainant has to pay the amount of Rs.63, 499/-to the OP, as because he consumed electricity.
Scrutinizing the record we observed that the OP prepared and sent the disputed bill for the month of July, 2013 which was astonishingly first bill since the connection date 01.01.2011 i.e nearly two and half years gap, which is an example of negligence on the part of the OP.
This delay of making bills by the OP also effects the payment of the complainant. So, the OP cannot allege the complainant as a defaulter as well as the cause of disconnection.
On the basis of above discussions and circumstances we can safely conclude that the complainant is entitled to get restoration of his submersible connection as well as benefit on payment by installments i.e the amount of Rs.63,499/- shall be paid by the complainant in 11 monthly installments along with the current bills.
Regarding prayer for compensation for mental pain and agony as well as for harassment cost of Rs.20000 +Rs.16501/- we find that where the complainant is getting restoration of service connection along with rectified bill and an installment payment benefit and for that we are of the opinion that the complainant is not entitled to get any other relief as compensation.
Thus the case succeeds.
Hence,
Ordered
that the Consumer Complaint No. 45/2014 be and the same is allowed on contest in part without any order as to cost.
The complainant is hereby directed to pay the arrear amount of Rs.63, 499/- in 11 monthly installments @Rs.6000/-per month for 10 installments and the remaining amount i.e. Rs.3, 499 for the last installment. The first installment is to be deposited as early as possible. Other installments will be deposited within the first week of succeeding months. He is to pay the current bills as usual.
The OP/Station manager, WBSEDCL, Salar CCC is also hereby directed to restore the service connection of the complainant after getting the first installment. If the OP fails to restore the connection of the complainant within 10 days from the date of receipt of the first installment, in that case the OP is to pay @Rs.50/- per day’s delay as fine and the amount so accumulated shall be deposited to 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.
