IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC/58/2018.
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
06.04.18 18.04.18 12.07.23
Complainant: Subaidul Islam Mondal
S/O Late Abdus Suvan Mondal, Vill. Khayertala,
P.O.Shibnagar,P.S. Jalangi,
Dist. Murshidabad, Pin 742306.
-Vs-
Opposite Party: Station Manager,WBSEDCL,Jalangi CCC.
P.O. And P.S.Jalangi, Dist. Murshidabad,
Pin 742305.
Agent/Advocate for the Complainant : Sampa Singha Ray
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party : S.S.Dhar.
Present: Sri Ajay Kumar Das………………………….......President.
Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………..Member.
Sri. Nityananda Roy……………………………….Member.
FINAL ORDER
Sri.ajay kumar das, presiding member.
This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.
One Subaidul Islam Mondal (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against Station Manager, WBSEDCL, Jalangi CCC (here in after referred to as the OP) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.
The material facts giving rise to file the complaint are that:-
The Complainant paid electric bill amount Rs. 2,644/-, Rs. 2,720/-, Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 9,044/- on 08.10.15, 15.12.17, 10.02.18 and 12.03.18 respectively. It is the further case of the Complainant that the OP, Station Manager, WBSEDCL, Jalangi CCC issued additional bill amounting to Rs. 15,239/- but he has paid Rs. 4,169/-. He prayed before Jalangi Station Manager and Domkal D.E. for correction of the additional bill amount but in vein.
Finding no other alternative the Complainant filed this instant case praying for relief as mentioned in the complaint.
The sum and substance of the defence case is that:
The OP, WBSEDCL, Jalangi CCC is contesting the case by filing written version contending inter alia that the instant case is not maintainable as there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP.
On the basis of the complaint and the written versions the following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case :
Points for decision
1. Isthe Complainant a consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?
2. Has the OP any deficiency in service, as alleged?
3. Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?
Decision with Reasons:
Point nos.1,2&3
All the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity of discussion. Argument was heard on both sides on 21.06.23. The Complainant himself was present. He stated before this District Commission that he prayed before SM, Jalangi and Domkal DE for correction of the excessive bill but no action was taken by them and as such he has filed the instant case.
Ld. Adv. for the OP submitted before this District Commission that it has not been mentioned in the complaint that the Complainant is a consumer to the OP. The consumer ID no. has not been mentioned in the complaint. The meter number has also not been mentioned in the complaint.
Reasons for delay
The Case was filed on 06.04.18 and admitted on 18.04.18. This Commission tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act,1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day orders.
In the result, the Consumer case fails.
Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is
Ordered
that the complaint Case No. CC/58/2018 be and the same is dismissed on contest but without any order as to costs.
Let plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand /by post under proper acknowledgment as per rules, for information and necessary action.
The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:
confonet.nic.in
Dictated & corrected by me.
President
Member Member President.
