West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/43/2016

Lakshman Ch. Chowdhury - Complainant(s)

Versus

Station Superintendent, W.B.S.E.D.C.L. - Opp.Party(s)

Ashis Roy Chowdhury

14 Jul 2016

ORDER

 

 

 

                                                            DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

and

Mrs. Debi Sengupta, Member

 

   

Complaint Case No.43/2016

                                                       

Lakshman Ch. Chowdhury, proprietor of “M/S Singha Bahini Mills”,

Vill-Banshiraisole, P.O.-Jatra Bishnupur, P.S.-Salboni, Dist-Paschim Medinipur…..….………Complainant

Versus

       Station Superindent, Chandrokona Road Group, Electric Supply office,                              

       P.O.-Santbankura, ……………………….……Opposite. Party.

 

 For the Complainant: Mr. Asish Roy Chowdhury, Advocate.

 For the O.P.              : Mr. Swapan Bhattacharya, Advocate.        

 

 

Decided on: -    14 /07/2016

                                

ORDER

             Mrs. Debi Sengupta, Member- The case of the complainant in a nutshell is that the complainant has a husking mill under the name and style “M/S Singha Bahini Mills”,  in the village at Banshiraisole, P.O.-Jatra Bishnupur, P.S.-Salboni, Dist-Paschim Medinipur.The complainant contents that this husking mill is the only livelihood of the members of the complainant.  The service connection of the complainant is mainly for his industrial unit and its service connection. No. is NBI/2227. Consumer serial no.10/02/50, meter no.ST511336.The complainant status that he has filed an application before the Forum against the OP alleging that there is no similarly between writing unit of the sending

 

Contd……………….P/2

 

( 2 )     

bill and the meter reading unit and as such huge amount of disputed bill was to be incurred upon the complainant. The complainant contends that after hearing both sides the Ld. Forum was pleased to pass an order and permitted the complainant to pay the arrear electric bill in twelve monthly installment. The complainant states that as per order of the Ld. Forum he deposited the  installment amount towards electric bill,  but again OP has sent the current bill of Rs.10,879/- including L.P.S.C. charges of Rs.4,473.39.The complainant contends that the OP has no right to claim  the interest of arrear disputed bill  and there is  no direction of the Ld Forum for realization of the L.P.S.C. The complainant also contents that he went to the office of the Op. and requested them not to take L.P.S.C. with the monthly bill. But they did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant OP also threatened the complainant with dire consequences that they would disconnect the electric connection in a day or two if the L.P.S.C. is not paid.

Hence the Complainant paid for directing the Op. not to disconnect the service connection and to send a fresh bill without L.P.S.C. and also prayerd for amounting to Rs. 20,000/- for mental agony and harassment.

The Op. has contested the case by filling W/O. In his W/O the Op. states that the case is not maintainable and is barred by Electricity act and the prayer of the Complainant is vauge and without any basis and as such the Complainant can not get any relief as prayed for.  Op. states that the Complainant went to the office of the Op. and requested the Op. to take monthly bill without L.P.S..C. but the Op. did not care of it or express the vindictive attitude to the Complainant. The OP states that the Complainant has a industrial connection and he has intentionally suppressed the real nature and has filed this case before the Ld. Forum. The Op. also submits that t due to wrong present reading put in the system it was effected but all the bills for the said moths as alleged by the Complainant has already been corrected and it was already sent to the Complainant and the Complainant is well aware of the same.

The Op. further submits that the Complainant is defaulter for four months. As per Electricity Act the agreement between the complainant and the Op. has been terminated and as per Electricity Act. The Complainant is no more a consumer under the Op. and the Op. submits that the Complainant is not get any relief as prayed in the complaint case No. CC/116/2015 and the same is not maintainable. The Op. contents that the case no. 116/15 Ld. Court was pleased to disposed of the case by allowing several installment of arrear bill but not the interest of the bill.

 

Contd……………….P/3

 

( 3 )    

The Op. further submits that as per the settled principal of law of

Electricity regulation Act, the L.P.S.C. can be charged from the current bill against the arrear bill which was not deposited in schedule time. So the L.P.S.C. charge to the Complainant is justified.

Finally the Op. submits that he has suffered huge loss day by day by the Complainant and prays for dismissal of the case with cost.

      Points for Dissions

1)Whether the case is maintainable or not ?

2)Whether the complainant is entitled to get reliefs, as prayed for ? 

                  

                         Decision with reason

Both the issues are taken up together for discussion as those are inter linked each other for the purpose of arriving at a correct decision in the dispute.

Ld. Advocate for the complainant made his argument that the case is  maintainable under the statutory provisions of Consumer Protection Act.

Ld. Advocate  for the complainant also argued that O.P. has no jurisdiction to calculate the interest of arrear of disputed bill amount as there is no direction by the Ld. President of D.C.D.R.F., Paschim Medinipur to LPSC  on the arrear of disputed bills.

Ld. Advocate for the complainant also argued that the complainant went to the office and requested them to take the said monthly electric bill without LPSC charges but the OP did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant .  Ld. Advocate for the OP argued that the complainant is defaulter for four months and as per Electricity Act the agreement between the OP is terminated and at this stage the complainant is not a consumer and so he is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for. Ld. Advocate for the OP argued that after contested hearing of the earlier case no.116/2015 the Ld. Forum has pleased to dispose of the case directing the electric supply/OP by several installments of arrear bill which was not along with the interest as per Electricity rules.  He also argued that as per Electricity Regulation LPSE can be charged from the current bill against the arrear bill which was not deposited in schedule time.  So the Ld. Advocate for the OP contends that the LPSC charged is justified. Ld. Advocate for the OP further argued that as per section 11 of the CPC the case is not maintainable where it was full and finally disposed.

We a have carefully considered the case of the parties and submission made by their Ld. Lawyers. From the impugned order passed in Complaint Care No.

 

Contd……………….P/4

 

(4 )    

116/2015 on 22/02/2016 passed by this Forum that this Forum allowed the Complainant to pay the arrear electric bill in eleven installment and at the rate of 7000/- per month and rest amount to be paid on twelve months. From the said order we find that this Forum did not restained the Op. from claiming LP.S.C. upon that arrear bill. From the notification of West Bengal Electricity Regularity Commission in clause 6:17:4 we find that in the case the payment of any bill for charges payable under this regularation delayed by a beneficiary beyond a period of 60 days from the date of billing the late payment surcharge @ 1.25% per month on the billed amount or prorated for part thereof shall be lavied by the generating Company or the transmission licence for the defaulted period recokening from the billed date. In view of that the claim of L.P.S.C. regarding the arrear bill by the Op. is lawfull and therefore the OP. can not be directed  not to claim L.P.S.C. on the delayed payment of the arrear bill. We therefore find no merit in the present complaint as such the petition of complaint is liable to be dismissed.

Hence, it is

                 Ordered

 

                                                                       that the complaint case no.43/2016 is dismissed on contest without cost.

                                    Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

                   

                             Dictated and Corrected by me

                                                Sd/-                                                                              Sd/-                                                                        

                                          Member                                                                        President

                                                                                                                           District Forum

                                                                                                                        Paschim Medinipur