IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No.CC /142/2016.
Date of Filing: 26.09.2016. Date of Final Order: 11.01.2017.
Complainant: Babar Hossain, S/O Late Majahar Sk, Vill. Nowda, P.O. Gankar, P.S. Raghunathganj, Dist. Murshidabad. Pin -742227.
-Vs-
Opposite Party: 1. The Station Manager, Raghunathganj CCC, WBSEDCL,
P.O.&P.S. Rathunathganj, Dist. Murshidabad, Pin 742227.
2. The Assistant Engineer, Raghunathganj CCC, WBSEDCL, P.O.& P.S. Raghunathganj,
Dist. Murshidabad, Pin 742227.
Present: Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya …………………. President.
Smt. Pranati Ali ……….……………….……………. Member
FINAL ORDER
Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya, Presiding Member.
The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant praying for restoration of electric connection and for setting aside of the bill imposing interest and for compensation of Rs.1, 50,000/-.
The complainant’s case, in brief, is that the complainant has STW connection for agricultural purpose and is a consumer under the WBSEDCL. The complainant never failed to make payment since 2014. On 2.11.2014 the transformer was burnt down but the OP did not pay compensation for their act. Without paying any compensation the OP imposing interest for the bills sent to the complainant. The OP without making any settlement over the imposition of the interest over the bill disconnected the line of the complainant on 06.09.2016. This act on the part of the OP is nothing but deficiency of service. The OP, without serving notice, disconnected the electric line arbitrarily. For that the complainant has filed the instant complaint. Hence, the complaint case.
The written version filed by the OP in brief is that the complainant did not pay the bill for the period from 4/13 to 7/15 and on 01.02.2016 the complainant paid a sum of Rs.29,000/- out of the outstanding dues of Rs.48,445.02/- and prayed for settlement before the OP. The OP allowed the petitioner to pay the dues by three installments of Rs.6, 483.02, Rs.6481/- and Rs.6481/- within 02.03.16, 04.04.16 and 02.05.16 respectively but the complainant did not pay those installments in time but paid Rs.20, 000/- on 20.10.2016. Thereafter, the OP sent bill for the month of August, 2015 imposing L.P.S.C for Rs. sum of Rs.23,174.48/- for non-payment of the bills in time as per Electricity Rules LPSC is to be started from the date of actual due up to the date of actual payment. The OP has denied about the burning of the transformer. The electric line of the complainant has never been disconnected and for that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.T he complainant is not entitled to get any relief. Hence, the instant written version.
Considering the pleadings of both parties the following points have been raised for the disposal of the case.
Points for Consideration.
Points.
- Whether the complaint is maintainable as per fact and law?
- Whether the complainant has any cause of action to file the present case?
- Whether the complainant is a consumer within the ambit of C. P. Act, 1986?
- Whether the complaint is barred by law of limitation?
- Whether the Forum has jurisdiction to try the case?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
Decision with Reasons.
Point Nos. 1 to 6.
All the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience.
The instant complaint is for restoration of electric connection and for cancellation of the bill imposing the interest.
To prove the case, the complainant has adduced evidence-on-affidavit along with relevant documents in support of his case. On the other hand, the OP has filed document as to the payment of disputed bill by the complainant and the electric rules for the purpose of imposition of LPSC.
In this case, during hearing the argument Ld. Advocate for the complainant advanced argument for adjustment of the cost for Rs.12, 000/- incurred by the complainant of replacement of the burnt out transformer from the dues of the complainant and raised objection against imposition of LPSC with the plea that the bill for the period of 8/15 claiming for delayed payment charged for Rs.23,174.48/- before the payment of first installment as per settlement by the OP.
The argument so advanced by the Ld. Lawyer for the complainant is not in the pleading of the complainant or in other words, there is no such averment in the complaint petition.
Further, there are no documents rather the bill in question for the period August, 2015 has been filed by the complainant showing actual date of receipt by him. As such argument advanced by the complainant that the bill received before the period of payment of first installment as on 02-03-2016. As such we can safely conclude that the complainant has no leg to establish his argument as advanced so far.
It is clear from the documents filed by the OP along with the provisions as to the Electricity Rules for charging the surcharge for delay payment for Rs.23,174.48/- we are of the view that the complainant is to pay the same and regarding the question of adjustment of cost of Rs.12,000/- incurred by the complainant for installation of new Transformer, we find that the documents filed by the complainant is only three letters intimating the fact as to the burning of the transformer but there is no cogent documents showing the payment of cost of the transformer by the complainant and also there is no specific averment in the complaint petition as to the prayer for adjustment of the cost incurred by the complainant for the new transformer replacing the burnt one.
That being so, we can safely conclude that the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as to the adjustment of alleged cost incurred by the complainant for the transformer.
The electric connection being for agricultural purpose and the payment of outstanding bill for the period from 3/13 to 7/15 being actually paid though delayed, we are of the view that the complainant should get opportunity for payment of the LPSC in respect of the bill for 8/15 for Rs. 23,174.48 by two monthly installment, first installment for Rs.13, 000/- and the 2nd for Rs.10,174/-. The first installment is to be paid as early as possible by the complainant and the 2nd installment is to be paid by first week of February 2017 and the complainant is to pay the current outstanding dues, if any.
Considering the above discussion as a whole, we find that all those points are disposed of in favour of the complainant in part and as such the complainant will get electric connection immediately after payment of first installment.
Hence,
Ordered
that the Consumer Complaint No. 142/2016 be and the same is hereby allowed on contest but in part. The complainant is directed to pay Rs.23, 174.48 by two installments, Rs.13, 000/- for the first installment and the Rs.10,174.48/- for the second installment. He is further directed to go on depositing the current bills, accordingly.
The first installment is to be paid as early as possible and the second installment is to be paid by the first week of February, 2013.
After getting the first installment of Rs.13, 000/- , the OP is to restore the electric connection of the complainant at once.
In case of any default on the part of the complainant, the OP is at liberty to act as per Rules.
In case of default on the part of the OP, WBSEDCL is to pay Rs.50/- as fine for days’ delay and the amount so accumulated shall be deposited in 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.
Member President.
