IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL  FORUM, 

                      MURSHIDABAD ,  AT  BERHAMPORE.

                                CASE No.  CC No. 93/2017.

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

  15.06.2017                                22.06.2017                                      30.10.2017

M/S Rahaman Plastic,

Factory at Banipur (Khejurtala),

P.O. Mianpur, P.S. Raghunathganj,

Dist. Murshidabad, Pin; 742 225

Represented by the Proprietor

Md. Obaidur Rahaman, S/o Kasimuddin Biswas,

residing at Banipur (Khejurtala), P.O. Mianpur,

P.S. Raghunathganj, Dist. Murshidabad, Pin; 742 225.    ……………… Complainant.

-Vs -

The Station Manager,

Raghunathganj C.C.C., WBSEDCL,

P.O. & P.S. Raghunathganj,

Dist. Murshidabad, Pin; 742 225. ……...……………...……............ Opposite Party.  

None  appear                                                          … for the Complainant

Sri Siddharth Sankar Dhar, Ld. Advocate                    … for the Opposite Party

                  Present :   Anupam Bhattacharyya ……… President.

                              Chandrima Chakraborty …­. .…. Member.           

J U D G M E N T

 Chandrima Chakraborty,  Member.

               Claiming himself as a consumer, under the C. P. Act, 1986, the Complainant has sought for interference of this Forum in respect of fact complained of.

               The case stated in the complaint, in succinct, is that, being the proprietor of the M/s Rahaman Plastic Factory the Complainant got an industrial electric connection in the month of Oct. 2015 under the Opposite Party bearing Consumer No. 3009676608 for running a Plastic blowing Machine under the financial help Scheme of P.M.E.G.P. which is the only source of his income to maintain his livelihood and had used to pay the average Bill amounting to Rs. 4,109/- only against the said connection. But suddenly the Opposite Party sent a Bill amounting to Rs. 12,735/- only for the month of Feb. 2017, whereas in that month the said Machine had been run only for 9 days, for which the Complainant suspected that the meter might be defective and lodged a complaint before the Opposite Party on 14.03.2017. 

                On the basis of the said complaint the Opposite Party checked the meter through Master meter and sent a fresh Bill amounting to Rs. 6,308/- only instead of previous Bill. The Complainant again raised objection against that Bill as the Machine was running only for 9 days and informed the matter to the Office of the concerned B.D.O. and again the Opposite Party sent another Bill amounting to Rs. 16,865/- only in the month of Mar. 2017 including the previous Bill amount of Rs. 6,308/- only.

Lastly the Opposite Party sent another Bill in the month of Apr. 2017 amounting to Rs. 20,076/- only including the previous Bill which was highly illegal as the dispute raised by the Complainant not yet been settled,  what amounts to negligence and deficiency in rendering service by the Opposite Party towards the Complainant for which being victimized and harassed by the Opposite Party the Complainant finding no other alternative than to file the instant case seeking adequate redressal against the Opposite Party. 

                Resisting the complaint, the Opposite Party filed the Written Version denying the contention made by the Complainant in his complaint and stating inter alia that the case is not maintainable, the Complainant has no cause of action, barred by limitation and the Forum has no jurisdiction to deal the instant matter.        

                The specific case of the Opposite Party in gist is that, actually the Complainant had filed the instant case against the Bill for month of Feb. 2017 which was generated on estimated basis of 1389 units for the period of 03.03.2017 to 04.04.2017. But after proper scrutiny the said Bill has been regenerated for the aforesaid period for 794 units instead of 1389 units.

                Moreover the Complainant has already paid the reduced Bill amount before this Opposite Party and also submitted a ‘Self Declaration’ stating that the Complainant has no further grievances against this Opposite Party. Thus, the Opposite Party denied any deficiency and negligence in rendering service towards the Complainant and prayed for dismissal of this case.

Point for Determination

1. Whether the instant case is maintainable ?

2. Whether the Complainant is a consumer ?

3. Whether there is negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the O.P?      

4. Whether the Complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for ?

Decision with Reasons

               All the points are taken up together for consideration for convenience and brevity.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               

               On overall evaluation of the argument made before us by the Ld. Lawyer for the Opposite Party and the material evidences on record, as none appear on behalf of the Complainant at the time of hearing argument on several calls, it is evident that admittedly the Complainant is a consumer under this Opposite Party having Consumer No. 3009676608.

                The record reveals that it is admitted by the Opposite Party that on receiving the complaint from the Consumer/Complainant the Opposite Party further scrutinized the said disputed Bill which was issued for month of Feb. 2017 for 1389 units and hence the Opposite Party reduced the said Bill and issued the fresh Bill for 794 units.

                Moreover, it is manifestly evident from the documents filed by the Opposite Party that the Complainant had already submitted the said fresh Bill amount and along with a letter that he has no further grievances against the Opposite party in this regard.

                Thus it is very much obvious from the situation that after filing of the Written Version by the Opposite Party the Complainant remains absent to contest the case and also from that letter written and given by the Complainant towards the Opposite Party that Complainant did/does not interested to contest the instant case as the matter has already been settled by and between the parties.

                So it is the unanimous view of the Forum that the case is justified to be dismissed on merit.

                In light of the above analysis, we are of the opinion that the Complainant is not entitled to get the relief as prayed for and consequentially the points for consideration are decided in megative.

      In the result, we proceed to pass

O R D E R

                That the case be and the same is dismissed on merit against the Opposite Party without any cost.

      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.