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

CASE No.  CC /38/2014 .

 Date of Filing:            13.03.2014.                                                Date of Final Order: 16.06.2015.

Complainant: Shyamal Saudagar, S/O Late Probhakar Saudagar, Station Road, P.O.Beldanga,

                        P.S. Beldanga, Dist. Murshidabad.

-Vs-

Opposite Party: Station Manager, W.B.S.E.D.C.L, Beldanga, P.O.+P.S. Beldanga,

                        Dist. Murshidabad. Pin Code- 742133.

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

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

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

FINAL ORDER

Smt. Pranati Ali—Presiding Member.

Brief facts of the complainant’s case u/s 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 is that the complainant Shyamal Soudagar, is a consumer of OP for his electric connection of his Cinema Hall named New Gandhswari Talkies, which is his only source of income. According to the complainant, he used to pay the bill regularly, but suddenly he got a exorbitant bill with an amount of Rs. 2, 82,302/- for the months of November, 2013 to January 2014. Then the complainant requested to rectify that exorbitant bill and the OP also sent a rectified bill with the amount of Rs.1, 68,940/- for the months of November ’13 to January’14. But the complainant was not satisfied with the new bill, so he again requested the OP to rectify the said bill by an application on 11.02.2014. Without getting any reply, he sent an advocate’s letter with same request on 26.02.2014. Thereafter, on 08.03.2014 the OP Personnel disconnected the electric line of the complainant at the time of running the show, as a result, the audience became violent and destroyed some materials. After words, the complainant several times requested the OP to restore the connection but OP remains silence.  Then the complainant came to the Forum for proper redress.  

On the other hand, the OP/Station Manager, Beldanga WBSEDCL appeared in this case by filing written version where he denied all the material allegations and described the fact behind this that the complainant is running a Cinema Hall with a load of 5.0 Kw, which he applied for extension of 40 K.w load. For which OP came to install a new Transformer of 63 KW along with separate new 3- phase meter matched with new load. On 08.08.13 at the time of meter replacement the new meter units was 0000 units and old was 253 units, which generated for 17878 units  on 10.11.13. So the bill of November’13 to January’14 which amounts to Rs. 1, 68,940/-. In addition to that, the complainant was a defaulter from a long time and till he has a burden of outstanding for which his electric line is disconnected. So, the OP stated that the case is liable to be rejected.

Now this Forum is to consider as to whether the OP is guilty of deficiency in service and whether the complainant is entitled for relief as prayed for.

                                           Decision with reasons.

It is very pertinent to mention that both the parties filed some Xerox documents in the support of their case.

            The only admitted position of the case is that the bill for the month of November 2013 to January 2014 is same with the amount of Rs. 1, 68,940/- as submitted by both the parties.

Perused the documents like Xerox copies of bill and receipts submitted by the complaint as well as bills along with one payment status report submitted by the OP, make us clear that the complainant was a regular defaulter/delay payer to the OP, which is evident in the bill as outstanding bill amount along with LPSC (Late Payment Charges). One payment Status Report prepared and submitted by the OP made a clear picture of defaulter, which shows that the bills for  the months from 3/2013 to 10/2013 , each and every bill was paid from one or two months late , so automatically the LPSC includes in every bill.

Besides this, we observed that one notice was issued by the OP to the complainant on 26.02.2014 with intimation to pay the bill for the month of 11/2013 to 1/2014 amounting to Rs.1, 72,253/- within 07.03.2014, failing which the electric line will be disconnected. The notice was received by the complainant on 27.02.2014. We found another letter dt. 08.03.2014 co-related with this notice, submitted by the complainant issued by the OP to the complainant with an information of temporary disconnection of the service line due to non-payment of dues, which also received by the complainant on the same day which proved that the compliant was not in the dark regarding disconnection.

On the basis the above discussions and the material on record, we are of the view that the OP has no fault or deficiency in service to perform the regular procedure of his duties.

Scrutinizing all the documents in the record, we observed that the complainant submitted two documents , one receipt and one installment bill which shows that the complainant paid the disputed bill amount and the OP restored the disputed electric connection. So, according to the complainant’s prayer in the complaint, he already got the reconnection by the OP.

Regarding the relief for compensation, it is clear that the disconnection of the concerned meter was done by the OP giving sufficient opportunity and proper intimation to the complainant and the said disconnection was done for the fault of the complainant himself and for that the complainant is not entitled to get any damages of his cinema hall caused by the unruly viewers for stopping the film show for such disconnection.

Further, the complainant has not filed any cogent evidence for such damages including any FIR and investigation report and report as to actual damages sustained.

On the basis of the above discussions, we can safely conclude that the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation.

Considering the above facts and circumstances of this particular case as discussed above, we have no other alternative but to conclude that the complainant is not entitled to get any relief and as such this complaint be dismissed .

Hence,

                                                        Ordered

that the Consumer Complaint No. 38/2014 be and the same is hereby dismissed on contest. There is 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.

             Member                                            Member                                                             President

District Consumer Disputes              District Consumer Disputes                              District Consumer Disputes

      Redressal Forum.                               Redressal Forum.                                               Redressal Forum.

        Murshidabad.                                     Murshidabad.                                                    Murshidabad.