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

                     CASE No.  CC/203/2017

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

   30.11.2017                                             14.12.2017                                 21.06.2023

Complainant:        Sadhan Kr. Pal,

                                S/o- Late Taritananda @ Tarit Pal,

                                Vill- Parulia, P.O.- Samsabad,

                                P.S.- Sagardighi

                                 Dist- Murhsidabad

                                Pin-742226         

                                                                -Vs-

Opposite Party The Station Manager,

                        W.B.S.E.D.C.L.

                        Sagardighi CCC  

                        P.O. & P.S.- Sagardighi

             Dist-Murshidabad

                        Pin-742226     

Agent/Advocate for the Complainant                        :           Bidishya Sarkar

Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Parties                  :           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 Sadhan Kr. Pal (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against The Station Manager (here in after referred to as the O.P.) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.

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

The Complainant took STW connection from the O.P. in the month of January, 2016 and the Complainant had already paid the bills raised by the O.P.

Due to financial crisis the Complainant was unable to pay his bill amounting to Rs. 36,250/- in the month of May, 2017.

Thereafter, all of a sudden on 05.05.2017 the men & agent of the O.P. came to premises of the Complainant and without giving any notice disconnected the line of the Complainant. The Complainant is always willing to pay the outstanding dues and with that intention the Complainant many a times requested the O.P. to accept the bill and to reconnect the line of the Complainant but the O.P. with an ulterior motive did not restore the line of the Complainant.

Afterthat O.P. used to send inflated, imaginary bill to the Complainant and on 08.11.2017 at about 11:46 A.M. the Complainant received a message from the O.P. and astonished to see that a sum of Rs. 54,457/- has been due for his connection.

The Complainant submits that the O.P. disconnected the line of the Complainant on 05.05.2017 for a sum of Rs. 36,250/- and the message of bill sent by the O.P. showed that the O.P. raised bill for each and every month after the disconnection of the line of the Complainant which is unfair trade practice of the O.P. The Complainant never consumed electric energy after discontinuing. So, the bill of Rs. 54,457/- is fictitious, inflated, unfounded and the same is not payable by the Complainant.

The Complainant many times requested the O.P. to issue fresh bill of energy charge if unpaid before disconnection period. But the O.P. did not pay any heed to the request of the Complainant and also threatened the Complainant that if the Complainant did not pay the entire sum of Rs. 54,457/- a theft case would be started against him.

  Finding no other alternative the complainant filed the instant case before the District Commission praying for a direction to the O.P. to issue fresh bill after deducting the amount of the period of disconnection period and also direct the O.P. to give connection of the Complainant and to pay a sum of Rs. 5000/- for cost and Rs. 10,000/- for compensation.

Defence Case

After due service of the notice O.P. appeared by filing W/V contending inter alia that the case is not maintainable as the statement made in the complaint that the Complainant has paid the bills regularly or due to financial crisis he has not been able to pay the bill for the month of May, 2017 or the O.P. disconnected the electric connection on 05.05.2017 illegally or the petitioner is willing to pay the outstanding bills or the bill which was received on 08.11.2017 for a sum of Rs. 54,457/- is inflated and excessive or the O.P. illegally claimed sum of Rs. 54,457/- are not true.

The Complainant is a STW consumer having consumer ID No. 301759502 and the Complainant used to run his submersible pump through meter no. RGX 101052. On 11.11.2017 the service connection was disconnected due to OSD of Rs. 54181.56/-. At present the OSD is Rs. 54768.35/-. On 10.01.2018 the O.P. inspected the STW premise and upon inspection it had been found that the above mentioned meter was in disconnected condition due to which the present reading could not be checked. However, a hooking arrangement had been detected at about 10 meter from the tapping pole. Evidence of running of SMP at recent times had also been detected. It was suspected that the Complainant or the operator of the Complainant might have run the SMP dishonestly bypassing the energy meter that had been found in disconnected condition. However, FIR could not be lodged against the Complainant as the SMP had not been found in running condition at the time of inspection. The meter had been removed from the place of installation and tested at the test branch of the office. The meter was found in good condition and its present reading was 25034 unites as on 10.01.2018. So, there is no billing dispute.

As regulation 6.1 of notification No. 55 of WBARC reconnection at the said STW premises can only be given upon payment of Rs. 54768.35/-.

Therefore, the complainant is not maintainable and the same is liable to be rejected.

Points for decision

1. Is the 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 no.1

 We peruse the complaint. The averments made in the complaint indicate that the Complainant is a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as well as Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Point Nos. 2 & 3

Both these points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity of discussion.

Ld. Advocate for the Complainant fairly submits before this District Commission that is a case of billing dispute and as such the District Commission may pass necessary order.

Ld. Advocate for the O.P. submits before this District Commission that it is admitted by the Ld. Advocate of the Complainant at the time of argument that it is a pure case of billing dispute and there is no evidence regarding deficiency of service. Such being the position we fairly submit that the instant Complaint case is liable to be dismissed.

After hearing both sides we perused the materials on record O.P. has clearly stated in his W/V that The Complainant is a STW consumer having consumer ID No. 301759502 and the Complainant used to run his submersible pump through meter no. RGX 101052. On 11.11.2017 the service connection was disconnected due to OSD of Rs. 54181.56/-. At present the OSD is Rs. 54768.35/-. On 10.01.2018 the O.P. inspected the STW premise and upon inspection it had been found that the above mentioned meter was in disconnected condition due to which the present reading could not be checked. However, a hooking arrangement had been detected at about 10 meter from the tapping pole. Evidence of running of SMP at recent times had also been detected. It was suspected that the Complainant or the operator of the Complainant might have run the SMP dishonestly bypassing the energy meter that has been found in disconnected condition. However, FIR could not be lodged against the Complainant as the SMP had not been found in running condition at the time of inspection. The meter had been removed from the place of installation and tested at the test branch of the office. The meter was found in good condition and its present reading is 25034 unites as on 10.01.2018. So, there is no billing dispute.

As regulation 6.1 of notification No. 55 of WBARC reconnection at the said STW premises can only be given upon payment of Rs. 54768.35/-.

Ld. Advocate for the Complainant kept mum at the time of argument regarding the fact of hooking arrangement and the fact of running of SMP dishonestly bypassing the energy meter. We find that the Complainant is not in clean hand.

Ld. Advocate for the Complainant did not raise any statement at the time of argument regarding deficiency of service on the part of the O.P. On perusing the materials on record we do not find any deficiency of service on the part of the O.P.

Keeping in mind the submissions advanced by the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that the instant complaint case is liable to be dismissed.

Reasons for delay

The Case was filed on 30.11.2017 and admitted on 14.12.2017. 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 fails.     

 Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is                                                            

Ordered

that the complaint Case No. CC/203/2017 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the O.P. but under the circumstances without any order as to costs.   

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.