IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL  FORUM,

MURSHIDABAD ,AT  BERHAMPORE.

CASE No.  CC No. 86/2016.

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

01.06.2016                                     10.06.2016                                    31.08.2017

Joydeb Ghosh,

S/o Late Fakir Ghosh,

Vill. & P.O. Bhabta, P.S. Beldanga,

Dist. Murshidbad, Pin: 742 134.          …………………… Complainant.

-Vs -

Station Manager,

Sargachhi Customer Care Centre,

SargachhiRamkrishna Mission,

P.O. Sargachhi, P.S. Beldanga,

Dist. Murshidbad, Pin: 742 134.          …..……............ Opposite Party.

None  appear          ……. for the Complainant

Sri SiddharthSankarDhar, Ld. Advocate          …….for the Opposite Party

Present :Anupam Bhattacharyya ……… President.

                              Chandrima Chakraborty …­. .….Member.

                              Manas Kumar Mukherjee ….…. Member

                                                                                                 Cont. ……….…. 2

= 2 =

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 diminutive, is that, the Complainant is the consumer under the Opposite Party being Consumer No. ID - 312166078. The Complainant alleged that the Complainant had used to pay the electric Bill in every month which varies from Rs. 1,300/- to Rs. 1,350/- only per month.

                The Complainant alleged that the meter reading was taken after 3 years from 04.06.2012 to 18.03.2015 instead of the fact that there was no allegation regarding the defective electric meter which is illegal on part of the Opposite Party and as a result energy charge was drawn at higher slab but from subsequent reading the monthly consumption as per reading comes to 700 units to 800 units but Bills were raised in higher units and a sum of Rs. 2,34,617/- only was claimed including outstanding dues of Rs. 2,14,682.92/- only which is baseless, unfounded and which the Complainant had never consumed.

                Thereafter the Complainant raised objection before the Opposite Party but the Opposite Party threatening the Complainant to disconnect the electric line unless the due claimed amount has not been paid, 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. 

Cont. ……….…. 3

= 3 =

                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 is an agricultural consumer under this Opposite Party (Sargachi C.C.C.) and this Complainant is the only consumer under one single distribution transformer. The said Bill in question was prepared including outstanding dues according to the meter reading. The Complainant never raised any question about the meter reading at any point of time. Moreover the Complainant did not paid the Bill amount for which the connection was disconnected with deemed permanent disconnection status as because the Complainant/consumer is a clear defaulter and there is no revenue during last 20 months from the said transformer and the Complainant is no longer a consumer under the 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 ?

Cont. ……….…. 4

= 4 =

                                             Decision with Reasons

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

                The main dispute between the Complainant and the Opposite Party is that, whether the Opposite Party are justified to charge the said disputed Bill in favour of the Complainant and whether the Complainant is at all liable to pay the said Bill amount towards the Opposite Party or not.

                On overall evaluation of the argument made before us by the Ld. Lawyer for the Opposite Party and the material evidences on record, it is evident that admittedly the Complainant is a consumer under this Opposite Party having the Consumer No. ID - 312166078.

                The record reveals that after filing of the Written Version by the Opposite Party the Complainant had not yet filed the Evidence in Chief on affidavit for a long time on & from 19.12.2016 till the date of hearing argument (25.08.2017) instead of servicing the notice towards the Complainant by this Forum for his personal appearance  but the Complainant miserably failed to appear before the Forum and for which the Forum decided to pass the ‘Final Order’ on basis of merit and documents filed by both parties in record.

                But perusing the Record it is clearly evident that no documents were filed and/or submitted by the Complainant at the time of filing of the instant case in support to prove the case.

                Thus in the instant case the unanimous decision of the Forum is that the Complainant has miserably failed to prove his case and so the case is liable to be dismissed.

                                                                                                     Cont. ……….…. 5

                                                       = 5 =

                Therefore in light of the above analysis, we are of the opinion that the Complainant has not proved the case at all and is not entitled to get the any relief as prayed for and consequentially the points for consideration are decided in negative.

      In short, the Complainant deserves failure.

      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.