IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.

CASE No.  CC /130/2014.

 Date of Filing:            16.09.2014.                                                                          Date of Final Order: 16.09.2015.

Complainant: Gayanath Ghosh, S/O Late Haladhar Ghosh,

                        Vill. Munaidanga, P.O. Kuli Kandi, P.S. Burwan, Dist. Murshidabad.

-Vs-

Opposite Party: Station Manager, WBSEDCL, Khargram Group Electric Supply,

                        Vill +P.O. + P.S. Khargram, Dist. Murshidabad, Pin-742147.

                       Present:                                  

                                         Sri Samaresh Kumar Mitra ……………………..Member.           

                                                                        Smt. Pranati Ali ……….……………….……………. Member

FINAL ORDER

Smt. Pranati Ali, Presiding Member.

Brief fact of the complainant’s case u/s 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 is that the complainant is a bona fide consumer of the Opposite Party, Station Manager, Khargram Group Electric Supply , WBSEDCL, for his Mini Deep Tube-well to irrigate his agricultural land at village Monai Kandra, Barwan, Murshidabad. On 25.07.2005 due to stolen of cable the supply of electricity was disconnected, but after getting information by the local people, the OP restarted the supply on and from 17.12.2005. Thereafter, several times the service of connection was discontinued due to burn or stolen of cable of the transformer. The complainant along with local people applied before the OP to exempt the energy charges of those periods, but the OP did not pay any heed to that matter. The complainant became astonished at getting the bill for the month of July, 2014 which shows that the monthly charge is sum of Rs.191/- along with the outstanding amount of Rs.48, 796/- . Then the complainant requested to the OP to consider his case and to exempt the outstanding charges, but in vain, the OP was silent. So, the complainant was bound to come to this Forum for proper redress.

On the other hand, the OP appeared in this case by filing written version, where he denied the allegation regarding outstanding raised by the complainant in his complaint. The OP also stated that the bill was correct and the complainant also realized that, so the complainant prayed for installments against the total outstanding amount. This OP considered and allowed the prayer. So the complainant paid the total outstanding amount in four installments. The OP further stated that as there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP as well as he has no objection against the outstanding bill amount. So, the instant case is liable to be rejected.

This shows that the dispute has been settled.

Considering the submission of both the parties, we are of the view that the case be disposed of being settled.

Hence,

                                                    Ordered

that the Consumer Complaint No. 130/2014 be and the same is disposed of being settled.

           There will be no order as to 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.