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

CASE No.  CC-23/2014. .

 Date of Filing:            24.02.2014.                                                                          Date of Final Order: 17.08.2015.

 Complainant:             Nurul Alam, S/O Late Swadagar Sk. Vill.&P.O.  Kuli, P.S. Burwan. Dist. Murshidabad.

Vs

Opposite Party: Station Manager, WBSEDCL, Panchthupi , P.O. Panchthupi, Dist. Murshidabad.

                       Present:  Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya   ………………….President.                                 

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

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

FINAL ORDER

Smt. Pranati Ali—Presiding Member.

Fact of the complainant’s case u/s 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 , in brief, is that the complainant is a bonafide consumer of WBSEDCL. According to the complainant he was informed through the bill of  03/2013 to 05/2013 along with a notice that one notice will be sent to him for payment of outstanding bills within due date to save the disconnection, by the WBSEDCL, but the notice was not served to the complainant afterwards the electric supply was disconnected. So, the complainant is  bound to come to this Forum for proper redress.

            On the other hand, the OP/Station Manager, Panchthupi CCC, WBSEDCL appeared in this case by filing written version, where he denied all the material allegations along with baseless claim of outstanding dues and no notice of disconnection. The OP also stated that the complainant consumed electricity, but did not pay the bills regularly. So, he is a habitual defaulter. At last, due to failure of payment of outstanding due the connection of the complainant was disconnected on 20.02.2013. So, the OP is not liable for deficiency in service, rather the complaint is liable to be rejected.

            Now, the only consideration of this case is that whether the OP is liable for deficiency in service or not, and whether the complainant is eligible for any relief or not as he prayed for.  

                                                             Decision with reasons.

            It is pertinent to mention that the complainant submitted Xerox copies of some documents like one bill and a few receipts in support of his case.

Admitted position is that the complainant is a bonafide consumer.   Record shows that the complainant submitted a Xerox copy of the bill for the month of 03/2013 to 05/2013 where outstanding amount of Rs.4838/- was for the 06/2011 to 08/2011 and 03/2012 to 02/2013 . Side by side, the said bill also shows that the complainant paid the dues for the period 09/2011 to 02/2012 on 26.03.2012 only the amount of Rs.1410/- where as the OP/WBSEDCL already disconnected the supply on 20.02.2013. This single bill is an evidence of long period of remains outstanding dues by the complainant, which point raised by the OP as a cause of disconnection.

            At the same time we observed that the complainant also tried to minimize the outstanding dues, which is evident the receipts submitted by the complainant. Though complainant paid the bill, but very late and irregular, so most of the times remain outstanding dues of bill amount along with late payment surcharges.

            On the other hand the OP failed to keep the record of receipt of the money from the complainant. We observed that the complainant deposited the amount of Rs.764/- for the months of 06/2011 to 08/2011 on 18.11.2011 but the amount remains outstanding till on the bill for the month of 03/2013to 05/2013. At the time of pleadings the complainant stated that he deposited the money through Tathya Mitra Kendra , a centre of WBSEDCL, but ld. counsel of OP denied the receipt of money and raised the question that why the complainant deposited the money to other centre and why not directly to their office. Scrutinized the record, our considered view on the issue is that the   Tathya Mitra Kendra is a wing of the same Government Enterprise , WBSEDCL, rather they uses the same logo also. So, the OP cannot disobey the payment made by the complainant, whereas the complainant used to pay through Tathya Mitra Kendra and the OP accepted the payment.

Regarding payment we observed that the complainant is an irregular payer, but the Tathya Mitra Kendra as a receiver was not sincere in his responsibility which is evident in a receipt, submitted by the complainant where they wrote the same months of the bill with other bill i.e 6/2011 -8/2011, in the name of Nurul Islam with same ID & Consumer No. of the complainant. In addition one bill (6/2011 to 8/2011) amount was received but not deposited to the WBSEDCL, which evident that the complainant submitted the receipt but the same amount and months were mentioned in the bill of 3/2013 to 5/2013 as an outstanding dues amount, but Tathya Mitra is not a party in this case. So, the OP should prepare fresh outstanding dues in collaboration with Tathya Mitra Kendra, as a departmental partner for the better service to the consumers.

On the basis of the above discussions and the materials on record, we can safely conclude that the OP has no fault or deficiency in service to perform the regular procedure of his duties. On the other hand, the complainant is a regular defaulter which evident through bill, receipts as well as the unpaid list prepared by the OP in his written version. So, the complainant has a responsibility to regularize the electric supply by paying the outstanding dues, which should be newly prepared by the OP in Calculation with Tathya Mitra Kendra.

            Considering the above facts and circumstances of this particular case, we have to conclude that the complainant is entitled to get electric supply after payment of outstanding dues.

Hence,

                                                                    Ordered

that the Consumer Complaint No. 23/2014 be and the same is hereby allowed on contest without any cost.

            The OP is directed to correct and prepare a fresh outstanding due and send to the complainant within 15 days from this order.

            Further, the complainant is also directed to pay the outstanding dues to the OP within one month from the receipt of the bill of fresh outstanding dues along with current regular bill.

            The OP is directed to reconnect the electric line within 15 days after payment of all outstanding dues by the complainant.

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.