IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.

CASE No.  CC /83/2014.

 Date of Filing:   27.06.2014.                                                                                       Date of Final Order: 18.06.2015.

Complainant:                 Murtaj Ali, S/O Yead Ali, Vill. Motra, P.O. Hazarpur Nabagram, P.S. Kandi,

                                    Dist. Murshidabad. Pin 742136.

                 -Vs-

Opposite Party:                         Station Manager, WBSEDCL, Gokarna Consumer Care Centre,

                                    P.O. Gokarna, P.S. Kandi, Dist. Murshidabad. Pin 742136.

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

                                         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 Murtaj Ali, is a bona-fide consumer under the OP for his Submersible Pump at this agricultural land. According to the complainant, he used to pay regularly his electric bill, but he received the bill for the month of August’13 to November’13 amounting to Rs.1,423/- with the outstanding amount of Rs.13,372/- while he paid the last bill for the month of July,2013 amounting to Rs.1,423/- . The complainant also stated that due to burnt of transformer  from August, 2013 to November, 2013 complainant was unable to cultivate but the OP raised a huge outstanding amount as well as OP forcibly seized the c able wire, meter and switch board etc in their custody. The complainant several times requested the OP to consider the said disputed bill, but the OP did not pay any heed to the matter. So, the complainant came to the Forum for proper redress.

The OP/Station Manager, WBSEDCL, Gokarna appeared in this case by filing written version, where he denied the allegation of illegal , improper and excessive charged bill on the period of transformer burnt i.e 08/2013 to 11/2013 . According to the OP, the complainant is a regular defaulter as because; he did not pay the bill for the period from 3/2012 to 4/2013 in time and paid the arrear amount of Rs.18, 510/- on 13.07.13. So, due to late payment LPSC (Late Payment Surcharge) was generated as the bill for August, 2013 which is not illegal as per tariff order of WBERC. The OP also stated that the said connection is an unmetered SMP connection for which mo meter or switch board is needed. So, question of seizing Meter or Switch Board does not arise. The OP also mentioned that the transformer burnt period, mentioned by the complainant is not true, the burnt occurred in October, 2013 and it was replaced then and there by the Authority. The OP also stated that the burnt was happened due to overload i.e. the complainant was permitted to run a load of 3.5 H.P, but he used to load of more than 5 H.P and the complainant is still a defaulter along with LPSC, so the complainant has filed this case with a mala-fide intention. So, the case is liable to be rejected.

The only point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief, as prayed for or not and also whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

                                                   Decision with reasons

The complainant in support of his case submitted one original bill and three letters along with Xerox copies of three letters, one receipt and three bills.

The OP submitted written version along with one Xerox copy of Inspection Report regarding the load of the sub-marsible pump of the complainant.

Perused all the documents submitted by the complainant. We observed that there was no bill for the period of August 2013 to November’13 amounting to Rs.1423 with outstanding of Rs.13,372/-, as alleged by the complainant in the complaint. Rather all bills are made for each month separately and the complainant submitted only September’13, December’13(1 original and 2 Xerox), Jan’14. All those bills show that monthly charges are Rs.1423/- and the disputed outstanding amount of Rs.13, 372/- was found in the bill of December,13 only, where as Rs.9103/- in the bill of September,13 and Rs.14,795/- in the bill of Jan’14 which is evident that the monthly charges are same as a normal procedure for SMP connection. But the outstanding amounts are accumulated month after month due to non-payment or late payment of the bill.

Besides this, we found one Xerox copy of receipt deposited by the complainant but astonishingly the receipt is not for the complainant, there is another consumer number. We are not clear why the complainant congested the record by this unnecessary documents like fake receipt, 3 bills for the same months (whereas disputed months are absent), etc which are considered to mislead and/or to make puzzle.

We observed that the OP filed only one document i.e one Inspection Report prepared and seal and signed by the AE of Station Manager regarding the load of the submersible pump, where we found that the complainant was allowed to connect 3.5. H.P. but his drawal load was more. This act of the complainant is an evidence of the statement of the OP in his written version that this overloading is the reason of burnt of transformer.

On the basis of above discussions and material on record, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

On minute observation we found that the complainant stated in the written argument that the OP disconnected the electric line of the complainant but he never mentioned disconnection in the complaint as well as has no prayer for reconnection, which is very much contradictory. Also we are not clear regarding cultivation loss, because the complainant stated that December to March is the time for cultivation, which needs electric energy for irrigation, but according to his statement the said transformer was burnt from August to November that means at the time of cultivation electric energy was available Both the statements of the complainant are very much contradictory and confusing , which creates a question in the mind , whether the complaint is in clean hand or not.

In the given facts and circumstances of the case coupled with  the documents submitted before the Forum, we are of the view that the complainant is not entitled to get relief as he prayed for i.e the correction of the bill.

Regarding the relief for compensation, it is clear that the OP prepared the bills according to law but from where the complainant found those amounts as he prayed for i.e Rs.49, 795/- is not clear to us. Further, the complainant has not filed any cogent evidence in support of his point.

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 as such this complaint is liable to be dismissed.

Hence,

Ordered

that the Consumer Complaint No. 83/2014 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