IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.

CASE No.  CC/152/2017.

      Date of Filing:                    Date of Admission:                Date of Disposal:

12.09.17                                        16.10.17                                             28.11.19

Complainant:                         Salemuddin  Sk

                                    S/o late Fulbas Sk

Vill. Kushmore, P.O. Gura, P.S. Nabagram,

 PS- Murshidabad, Pin- 742184.

-Vs-

Opposite Party:         1. The Station Manager, WBSEDCL,

                                    Nabagram Customer Care Centre

P.O. +P.S. Nabagram,

            Dist.  Murshidabad,

Pin- 742184

2.  The Regional Manager, WBSEDCL,

            Administrative Building, Cantonment Road,

Berhampore, Dist.  Murshidabad,

Pin- 742101

Agent/Advocate for the Complainant                        : Sri. Utpal Pal & Sri Swapan Mukherjee.

Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1 : Sri. S.S. Dhar.

Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party No.2             : None

                       Present:   Sri Asish  Kumar Senapati………………….......President.                             

                                          Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………..Member.

FINAL ORDER

  Asish Kumar Senapati, Presiding Member.

                        One : Salemuddin  Sk(here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against the Station Manager, WBSEDCL, WBSEDCL   Nabagram Customer Care Centre and another (here in after referred to as the OPs) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.

  The sum and substance of the complaint case is as follows:-

                   The Complainant is a consumer of electricity under the OP vide Consumer Id. No. S922605 but do to mistake on the part of the O.P. No.1 another connection was started in the name of the Complainant vide Consumer Id. No. S922998 as a result a huge unpaid bill was shown in the name of the Complainant  against Consumer Id. No. S922998 for the period from 2007 to 2014 amounting Rs.88,461/-.. Hence, the complainant has prayed for a direction upon the             O.Ps. for  rectification of the bill  and adequate compensation for mental pain and agony.                       

                    The OP No.1  filed written version on 05.02.18 contending that the case is not maintainable. It is the specific case of the O.P. No.1  that the Master Card was wrongly generated in the name of the complainant  Vide No. S922998 but the complainant is actually a consumer vide no. S922605 and after detection of the mistake  the matter was sent to the Divisional Office for rectification and the matter is under process.  The OP No. 1 prays for dismissal of the Complainant.               

The OP No. 2 did not turn up in spite of service of notice.

  On the basis of the above version the following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case :

Points for consideration

1. Isthe Complainant a consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?

2. Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?

3. Have the OPs any deficiency in service, as alleged?

4. Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?

Point no.1

The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the Complainant is a consumer as she hired services of the OPs for consideration.

 In reply, the Ld. Advocate for the O.P. No. 1 submits that the complainant is not a Consumer.

On going through the complaint, written version and other materials on record and on a careful consideration over the submission of both sides, we find that the complainant hired services of the O.P. for consideration. Hence, we hold that   the complainant is  a consumer in terms of section 2 (I )(d) (ii) of the C.P.Act, 1986.

Point Nos.2.

            The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and the claimed amount is also within pecuniary limit of the District Forum.

On a careful consideration over the materials on record, we find that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and this Forum has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

Point Nos. 3&4

The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the O.P.No. 1 has admitted that the complainant has a service connection vide consumer No. S922605 buta service connection vide No. S922998 was wrongly generated in the system in the name of the complainant. It is contended that the complainant paid a huge amount against consumer No. S922605with a view to avoid disconnection. It is urged that the OPs may be directed to adjust the amount with consumer No. S922605 already paid against consumer No. S922998.

In reply, the Ld. Advocate for the O.P. No.1 submits that the mistake in the system is due to some technical problems and the O.P. No. 1initiated note for deletion of Consumer No S922998 along with OSD amount of Rs. 88,461/-for the period from 11/2007 to 01/2014. It is urged that the OPs have no deficiency in service. He prays for passing appropriate order.

We have gone through the materials on record and considered the submission of both sides. Admittedly, the complainant has a service connection vide consumer No. S922605 buta service connection vide Consumer No. S922998 was wrongly generated in the system in the name of the complainant showing outstanding dues for the period from from 11/2007 to 01/2014 amounting Rs. 88,461/- . The complainant has no liability to pay the bill wrongly generated against Consumer No. S922998. We find that the OPs has deficiency in service. As the O.P. No. 1 has already initiated note dt 24.02.14 for deletion of Consumer No S922998 along with OSD amount of Rs. 88,461/-for the period from 11/2007 to 01/2014, we do not think it proper to direct the OPs to pay compensation for deficiency in service . In our considered opinion, the OPs may be directed to to adjust the amount with consumer No. S922605 , if already paid against consumer No. S922998 by the complainant. Both the points are thus disposed of.

REASONS FOR DELAY :

The Case was filed on 12.09.17 and admitted on 16.10.17 . This Forum 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.

Fees paid are correct.

In the result, the complaint case fails, Hence it is

                                    ORDERED

that the complaint Case No. CC/152/2017 be and the same is hereby allowed on contest against the OP No.1 without cost and allowed exparte  against the OP No.2 without cost.

The OPs be directed to to adjust the amount with consumer No. S922605 , if already paid against consumer No. S922998 by the complainant by sixty 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