IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.

CASE No.CC/132/2014  .

 Date of Filing:   19.9.14.                                                                                 Date of Final Order: 19.09.16

Complainant :  Amarnath Bhattacharyya, S/O Late Birendra Nath Bhattacharyya,

                        Vill. & P.O. Kanfala, P.S. Nabagram, Dist. Murshidabad.

-Vs-

Opposite Party: WBSEDCL , Station Manager, Nabagram CCC, P.O. Kanfala, P.S. Nabagram,

                        Dist. Murshidabad.

                       Present:                                

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

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

FINAL ORDER

            Smt. Pranati Ali, Presiding Member.

 Instant complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 for order to the OP to forbid to take the outstanding amount of Rs.10, 383/-  as well as not to disconnect the electric line of the complainant.

     The complainant’s case, in brief, is that the complainant Amar Nath Bhattacharyya has an industrial electric connection for his wheat grinding mill by the OP. In the year 2002 the complainant had filed a petition in  this Forum for legality and validity of average bill, which was allowed and the OP was directed to draw average bill and restore the electric line, side by side, the complainant was also allowed to pay the outstanding dues by four monthly installments commencing from the month of March2003. According to the complainant, he paid all outstanding dues as per order of the Ld. Forum and afterwards he used to pay regularly the electric charges. But complainant received a bill for the month of July, 2014 with an outstanding amount of Rs.10, 383 from the OP. The complainant several times requested to the OP not to demand the outstanding which she has been paid, but the OP did not pay heed to the request. According to the complainant such act of the OP is deficiency in service. So the complainant came to this Forum for proper redress.

       On the other hand the OP appeared in this case by filing written version where he denied all the allegations against him. The OP stated that the complainant is true in payment of previous judgment of the Ld. Forum; she paid all the dues in four installments according to the order. After that he used to pay as per meter reading but later he became defaulter due to non-payment of bills for the month of June, 2004, March-2007 and January 2009 amounting to Rs. 10,383/- which was claimed by the OP. So, the complainant has to prove that he has paid the said amount to the OP. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and so the complaint is liable to be rejected.

                                                               Decision with Reasons.

            The complainant has submitted some documents in support of his case.

            Perused the record, we observed that it is admitted fact that the complainant paid the previous outstanding as per order of the Ld. Forum by four installments, which is evident by the

documents submitted by the complainant as well as the OP also agreed upon the matter in his  written version.

            We also observed that as the complainant stated in the complaint that the OP illegally claiming the outstanding of Rs.10, 383/- because the complainant already paid the amount. This is not true. As because the complainant’s previous complaint was in the year 2002 and outstanding amount was Rs.13, 199/- for the period of 02/2002 to 10/2002 which was paid within 04/2004 by  the complainant, all these are verified by the submitted documents along with statement given by the OP in the written version. But later the said amount i.e Rs.10, 383/- was unpaid by the complainant for the bills of 06/2004, 03/2007, 01/2009 which was mentioned in the written version of the OP. It is evident in the bill for the month of July, 2014 submitted by the complainant.

            At the time of argument, the complainant demanded that outstanding amount of Rs.10, 383/- for the month of June, 2004, March, 2007 and January 2009 are false, because already the amount paid by him and as evidence he submitted the money receipt for June, 2004. Scrutinizing the record, we observed that the complainant submitted money receipt of only June, 2004; other two months’ money receipts are not found in the record. Astonishingly, the date of Money receipt is 30.07.2014 which is later than the bill date i.e 23.07.2014 i.e June, 2004 bill was paid later and so, the bill with outstanding of June, 2004, March 2007 and January, 2009 was not false. However, the OP agreed at the time of pleadings that if any payment was made by the complainant then that amount would be de ducted from the outstanding amount of Rs.10,383/- . So, here the amount of Rs.3052/- will be deducted from the total outstanding of Rs.10, 383/- i.e the amount of Rs.7, 331/- shall be paid by the complainant to the OP.

            On the basis of above discussions and also considering the documentary evidence on payment of bill by the complainant, we have no other alternative but to conclude that the complainant have to pay the outstanding amount of Rs.7,331/- instead of Rs.10,383/- as he enjoyed the electricity as well as paid a part of outstanding amount of Rs.10,383/-.

            Hence,

                                                                       Ordered

that the Consumer Complaint No. 132/2014 be and the same is hereby  dismissed on merit .

             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.