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

             CASE No.  CC/2/2017.

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

     16.01.17                                    24.07.17                               05.08.19

Complainant: 1. Amrita Kumar Biswas

                        S/o Late Anil Kumar Biswas

                        Vill &PO- Andulberia, PS-Rejinagar

                        Dist-Murshidabad, Pin-742189

                        2. Animesh Biswas

                        S/o Amrita Kumar Biswas

                        Vill &PO- Andulberia, PS-Rejinagar

                        Dist-Murshidabad, Pin-742189

-Vs-

Opposite Party: Station Manager, WBSEDCL Rejinagar

 Vill&PO&PS-Rejinagar,

Dist-Murshidabad

Pin-742189

Agent/Advocate for the Complainant No.1&2           : Sri. Madan Mohan Dutta.

Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party                     : Sri. Siddhartha Sankar Dhar.

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

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

FINAL ORDER

  Asish Kumar Senapati, Presiding Member.

    This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.

            One Amrita Kumar Biswas and Another (here in after referred to as the Complainants) filed the case against the Station Manager,WBSEDCL, Rejinagar (here in after referred to as the OP) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.

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

            There was an electric connection in the name of Late Anil Kumar Biswas, father of the Complainant No.1, being consumer No. 5720913 and it was disconnected on 13.12.10 as per prayer of the Complainants. Subsequently, the Complainant No. 2 got a quotation for an STW connection and the Complainants made a pacca construction for the said electric connection. On 01.03.16, the Complainant No. 2 went to the office of the OP to diposit the quotation amount but the OP showed him a computerized bill in the name of Late Anil Kumar Biswas showing outstanding dues of Rs.40,656/-. The said bill has no basis. The Complainants prayed for acting upon the quotation issued in favour of the Complainant No.2 and compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for unnecessary harassment, professional loss, mental agony and loss of prestige.

            The OP contested the case by filing written version on 29.11.17 contending that the case is not maintainable and the Complainants are not consumers. It is the case of the Complainants that there was an STW connection being Consumer ID No. 312068041 in the name of Late Anil Kumar Biswas.  As per application filed by the legal heirs of  Late Anil Kumar Biswas dated 06.12.10, the connection was disconnected on 19.12.13 due to non-payment of electric bills. The final bill was raised amounting Rs.40,208/-. As the meter was disconnected due to non-payment of bill, the disconnection was noted as temporary disconnection. It is true that a quotation was issued on 02.12.15 as per application filed by Complainant No.2 for new STW connection on certain terms and conditions and one of the conditions was if any payment is due, Animesh Biswas would pay the dues at first and the quotation was valid for 90 days from the date of issue. The quotation has not effected  as the condition of the quotation is not complied as per regulation 46 of WBERC vide clause No. 13.9 for getting new connection for supply of electricity from a licensee. The intending customer shall be required to pay all outstanding dues to the licensee in the respect of any other service connection in the same area of supply of the same licensee and he was also be responsible for payment of outstanding charges. In the instant case Animesh Biswas, Complainant No.2 is the grandson of Anil Biswas and son of Complainant No.1. Without payment of outstanding dues, the Complainant No.2 is not entitled to get any electric connection. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

            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. Has the OP 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 Complainants submits that the Complainants have prayed for direction to act upon the quotation issued by the OP in favour of the Complainant No2 dated 04.12.15 and cancellation of the outstanding bill in the name of Anil Kumar Biswas.

            In reply, the Ld. Advocate for the OP submits that the Complainants are not consumers. Having gone through the written complaint, written version, evidence of the Complainant and documents submitted by both sides, we find that the Complainants are consumers in terms of section 2 (I) (d) of the CP Act, 1986.

Point No.2

     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. Both the points are thus disposed of.

Point Nos.3&4

            The Ld. Advocate for the Complainants submits that the legal heirs including the Complainant No.1 filed the application on 13.12.10 praying for disconnection of service connection of consumer ID No.312068041 and paid Rs.70/- for temporary disconnection charge on 13.12.10.

            It is urged that as the OP disconnected the service connection in the name of Anil Biswas on 13.12.10 and  it can be safely presumed that all outstanding dues in the name of Anil Biswas was paid before disconnection and the legal heirs of Anil Biswas paid Rs.895/- on 13.12.10.

            He argues that the outstanding bill in the name of the Anil Biswas amounting Rs.40,656/- is absurd and baseless and the Complainant No.2 is not bound to pay the absurd bill in the name of Anil Biswas for getting new STW connection. It is urged that the OP has deficiency in service and the Complainant is entitled to get relief against the OP.

            In reply, the Ld. Advocate for the OP submits that the OP has filed the statement on outstanding dues in the name of Anil Biswas from January, 2011 to February , 2014 amounting Rs.40,208/- showing break up of consumption of units during that period. He argues that the service connection in the name of Anil Biswas was disconnected as per prayer of  legal heirs of Anil Biswas dated 13.12.10 and as per their application,  Anil Biswas died in 2002. He further contends that as there was outstanding dues, the service connection was disconnected temporarily and the legal heirs of Anil Biswas never paid total outstanding dues of the service connection in the name of Anil Biswas. It is submitted that the quotation was issued in the name of Complainant No.2 on 04.12.15 on certain terms and conditions and one of the conditions was that the intending consumer is to pay all outstanding dues before deposit of quotation amount and the quotation was valid for 90 days. It is submitted that the Complainant No.2 did not comply the terms and conditions of the quotation within 90 days from the date of issue of the quotation, as a result, the quotation dated 04.12.15 has been lapsed and there in no scope to act upon the quotation dated 04.12.15.It is contended that the OP has no deficiency in service and the Complainants are not entitled to get any relief.

       Perused the written complaint, written version, evidence of the Complainants and the documents filed by both sides.

            Admittedly, Late Anil Biswas had an electric connection vide consumers No. 5720913 and the said connection was disconnected on 13.12.10 as per prayer of legal heirs of late Anil Kumar Biswas. It is apparent from the application filed by the legal heirs of Late Anil Kumar Biswas (Annexure-1)  that Anil Kumar Biswas died on 2002 and application was filed on 13.12.10. Quotation for temporary disconnection was issued on 13.12.10 (Annexure-2) and temporary disconnection charge of Rs.70/- was deposited on 13.12.10 (Annexure-3). We also find that an amount of Rs.895/- (Annexure-4) was diposited on 13.12.10 and quotation in the name of the Complainant No.2 was issued on 04.12.15 (Annexure-5). The OP has asserted that there is outstanding dues in the name of Anil Kumar Biswas amounting Rs.40,208/- up to February, 2014 and the validity of the quotation dated 04.12.15 has already been expired after lapse of 90 days. It appears from the condition No.4 of the quotation that intending consumer shall have to pay the outstanding dues. The Complainants have not filed any receipt to show that they paid the bills regularly in the name of late Anil Kumar Biswas from January, 2011 to February, 2014 against the STW connection No. 312068041. We are unable to accept the argument advance by the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant that as an amount of Rs.895/- was paid on 13.12.10 i.e. on the date of temporary disconnection, it can be held that there was no outstanding dues in the name of Anil Kumar Biswas on 13.12.10 after payment of Rs.895/-. The OP has filed the statement  of outstanding dues  during  the period from January, 2011 to February, 2014 amounting Rs.40,208/-.

            We find no justification to hold that the outstanding amount in the name of Late Anil Kumar Biswas is baseless. The validity of the quotation dated 04.12.15 in the name of the Complainant No.2 had been expired after lapse of 90 days and the Complainants have not filed the case before the expiry of the period of quotation. Therefore, we find no justification to give any direction upon the OP to act upon the quotation in the name of the Complainant No.2 dated 04.12.15. We find that the Complainants have failed to establish any deficiency in service on the part of the OP and the Complainants are not entitled to get any relief.

Reasons for delay

The Case was filed on 16.01.17 and admitted on 24.07.17 . 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 order.

Fees paid are correct.

In the result the case fails. Hence it is

                                                     ORDERED

that the complaint Case No. CC/2/2017 is hereby dismissed on contest against the OP without cost.

          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.