C.F. CASE No.                      :            CC/2013/95

COMPLAINANT                    :           Gopal Adhikary,

                                                S/o Late Badal Chandra Adhikary,

                                                Nuniyapara Lane, Ghurni Bazar,

                                                P.O. Ghurni, P.S. Kotwali, Dist. Nadia

• Vs  –

OPPOSITE PARTY/OP   :               Station Manager,

                                                                                West Bengal State Electricity Board,

                                                                                Radhanagar Sector at Radhanagar,

                                                                                Sector Bejikhali,

                                                                                P.O. Krishnagar, Dist. Nadia

PRESENT                : SHRI PRADIP KUMAR BANDYOPADHYAY, PRESIDENT

   : SMT REETA ROYCHAUDHURY MALAKAR, MEMBER

                 : SHRI SHYAMAL KUMAR GHOSH, MEMBER

DATE OF DELIVERY                                             

OF  JUDGMENT                         :    10^th June, 2014

:    J U D G M E N T    :

This is the case under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.  The facts of the case to put in a nutshell, are as below:-

The complainant, Gopal Adhikari has filed this case challenging the bill amount of Rs. 30,550/- sent by the OP, W.B.S.E.D.C.L. (Radhanagar Sector).  The bill is imaginary, excessive and baseless.  Another bill is Rs. 23,816/- was sent (vide annexure -1 & 2) respectively.  The petitioner paid the amount for the period January, February & March amounting to Rs. 996/- in total (Annexure – 3).  The petitioner prayed for rectification of the bill (Annexure – 4).  The petitioner consumes Rs. 150 – 250/- units, but due to the defective meter the inflated bills are coming from the OP.

The cause of action arose on 10.04.13 when the petitioner sent a letter to the OP, but he did not take any step.  The yellow card of the OP shows the meter reading (annexure – 5).  In ‘row – 5’ of the yellow card the name of the consumer has been written as Badal Chandra Adhikary.  He was the father of the present petitioner.

The petitioner prays for appointment of electric inspector, examination of the meter with a prayer for not realizing the bill before such inspection by the electric inspector.  The petitioner has further prayed for getting immediate electricity connection.  Compensation of Rs. 50,000/- has been prayed along with cost of the suit.  The petitioner has further prayed for quashing bill for the month of July and September, 2013.

The OP has filed written statement challenging the contentions of the complainant.  The sum and substance of the defence case is as below:-

The case is bad for misjoinder of parties.  The case is not maintainable as the petitioner is not a consumer at all.  The bills for the month of July, August and September are not excessive and baseless.  All the allegations have been denied in the written version.  The previous consumer, Badal Chandra Adhikary has paid the bill for the period from July, 12 to September, 12 and also for the period from August, 2012 to December, 2012.  The order of Consumer Fourm passed on 10.03.05 in NAD 52/O/04 was obeyed by the OP and after subtracting Rs. 6,039/- from Rs. 34,525/- the bill amount of Rs.28,436/- was sent to the complainant.  But the bill was not paid.  Finally the bill of Rs.27,952/- was not paid.  Hence, dismissal has been prayed.

POINTS FOR DECESION

1. Point No. 1:   Can Gopal Adhikary claim that he is a consumer?
2. Point No. 2:   Has the complainant proved any anomaly in the bills?
3. Point No. 3:   Is the complainant entitled to get a relief as prayed for?

REASOND DECISIONS

            For the purpose of brevity and convenience all the points are taken up together for discussion.

            We have meticulously gone through the pleadings of the parties, the annexed documents including the yellow card.  We have carefully gone through the written argument by both parties.  The complainant filed written argument by 17.02.14 and OP prayed for treating its written statement as written argument. 

            In the written argument the complainant has stated that the case under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act is maintainable as the petitioner is a legal heir of the deceased Badal Chandra Adhikary who was consumer.  It has been further argued in writing by the complainant that if there been any dues since 2011 in respect of the bills the line could have been disconnected much earlier but that was not done.   Hence, the electric line has been wrongly disconnected and bills have been inflated.  It has been further argued that the defective electric meter has not been corrected or it has not been replaced.  Ld. Advocate for the complainant has taken us to a case law reported in (1994) III CPJ 373 (A.P.).  We find that the case was relating to a tenancy to get electricity in a tenanted premise.

             But in the instant case the father of the complainant was a registered consumer under W.B.S.E.D.C.L., Radhanagar Group Electric Supply vide ‘Annexure–5’, the yellow card.  The yellow card relates entry from 04.01.10 to 29.08.2013.  Gopal Adhikary did not take any step to get his name registered as a consumer.   Although it has been argued by Ld. Advocate that Gopal Adhikary received letter from the Station Manager but that does not ipso facto entitle Gopal Adhikari to claim as a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act.  Moreover, Gopal Adhikari, could not pay the bill amounts for consuming 2519 units vide letter dtd. 12.07.2004 addressed to Gopal Adhikari, Radhanagar Sector.  In the said letter it has been stated that Gopal Adhikari never paid the unpaid bills.  Hence, the case law cited by the ld. Advocate for the complainant does not help the complainant.  In our considered opinion, the complainant Gopal Adhikari is not a consumer under the OP.

            For every complaint against inflated bill the Ombudsmen should be moved.  Still the unpaid amount of the complainant is Rs.27,052/-.   Unless that amount is paid, no relief could be available to the complainant.   Mere sending of letter in the name of Gopal Adhikari does not ipso facto making him consumer.  We have perused the judgment passed by this Forum earlier in NAD/O/04 wherein opportunity was given to raise supplementary bill according to law beginning from the month April, 2004.  Billing was made but the bill amount remained unpaid.

            We have also considered the fraudulent move by the complainant to avoid the bill payment.  We have gone through the decision of Civil Appeal No. 14421 of 1996 wherein a clear guideline has been given by the Hon'ble judges regarding the special statutory remedy.  In the instant case the complainant did not follow the statute and the complainant has regrettably failed to establish his case.    Hence, he is not entitled to get any relief.   The all points are thus decided accordingly.

            Hence,

Ordered,

That, the case CC/2013/95 be and the same is dismissed on contest. No cost.

Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.