IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC/124/2017.
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
04.08.17 10.08.17 23.08.23
Complainant: Prabhas Mondal
S/O- Lt. Harendra Nath Mondal,
Vill- Nabingram, PO- Sagarpara, PS- Jalangi,
Pin- 742306
-Vs-
Opposite Party:Station Manager, WBSEDCL, Jalangi CCC
PO- Sagarpara, PS- Jalangi,
Pin- 742306
Agent/Advocate for the Complainant : Sambarta Mukherjee
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party : S.S. Dhar
Present: Sri Ajay Kumar Das………………………….......President.
Sri. Nityananda Roy……………………………….Member.
FINAL ORDER
Sri.ajay kumar das, presiding member.
This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.
One Prabhas Mondal (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against Station Manager, WBSEDCL, Jalangi CCC (here in after referred to as the OP) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.
The material facts giving rise to file the complaint are that:-
The Complainant is an Indian citizen and he resides at above noted address.
Harendra Nath Mondal since deceased was the father of the Complainant and he used to enjoy the electricity through a service connection bearing consumer ID No. 312153367 and used to pay the energy charges regularly which he consumed.
Harendra Nath Mondal died few years ago and after his death the Complainant (his son) used to enjoy the said service connection and paid the bills regularly which he consumed. The Complainant paid the bills against 85 units per month averagely but suddenly the OP demanded the energy charges against 2159 unit and against that the Complainant filed an application before the OP for calculating the actual units. There after the OP reduced the units and demanded the charges against 858 units but the Complainant submits that the said units was also not properly calculated. Moreover, the OP is not entitled to get any amount as outstanding from the Complainant as the Complainant paid the bills regularly to the OP. On several occasions the Complainant requested the OP for proper calculation of the units which the Complainant consumed but OP did not pay any heed to that effect rather the OP threatened the Complainant for disconnection of the said service connection. It is clearly a deficiency in service on the part of the OP so the Complainant is bound to file this case for getting proper relief and the said application was registered as case No. CC/159/2016 but on the assurance given by the OP that they would negotiate the matter out of court. So the Complainant did not turn up in the said case and as such the said case was dismissed on 18.01.17.
The Complainant prays before us to give a direction to the OP for proper calculation of the units and also pass an award of Rs. 30,000/- for mental pain and agony and Rs. 30,000/- for harassment cost.
The OP has filed written version contending inter alia that the case is not maintainable. The specific case of the OP is that the service connection bearing No. 312153367 stands in the name of Harendra Nath Mondal. The OP regularly used to send bill to the Petitioner. Since September 2014 the OP raised bill according to running meter having present reading 3017 units showing the previous reading as 2159. So 858 units have again been charged. So a note sheet has been send to the competent authority by this authority for negative adjustment of the said units. So there is no negligence on the part of the OP.
On the basis of the complaint and the written versions the following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case :
Points for decision
1. Isthe Complainant a consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?
2. Has the OP any deficiency in service, as alleged?
3. Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?
Decision with Reasons:
Point Nos.1,2 & 3
All the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity ofdiscussion.
Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits before this District Commission thatit has been clearly admitted in the written version that 858 units have been charged again and a notesheet has been sent to the competent authority by the OP for negative adjustment of the said units.
Ld. Advocate for the OP fairly submits that they have stated their submissions in their written version. The Commission may pass the necessary order.
After hearing both sides we peruse the materials on record particularly the written version. OP has stated in their written version, ‘’…service connection bearing No. 312153367 stands in the name of Harendra Nath Mondal. The OP regularly used to send bill to the Petitioner. Since September 2014 the OP raised bill according to running meter having present reading 3017 units showing the previous reading as 2159. So 858 units have again been charged. So a note sheet has been send to the competent authority by this authority for negative adjustment of the said units. So there is no negligence on the part of the OP….’’
Keeping in mind the submission of both sides and considering the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that 858 units is required for negative adjustment.
Reasons for delay
The Case was filed on 04.08.17 and admitted on 10.08.17. This Commission tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act,1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day orders.
In the result, the Consumer case is allowed.
Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is
Ordered
that the complaint Case No. CC/124/2017 be and the same is allowed on contest.
OP is directed for proper calculation of the units after taking 858 units for negative adjustment within 60 days from the date of this order.
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
Dictated & corrected by me.
President
Member President.
