West Bengal

Dakshin Dinajpur

CC/30/2016

Amitava Chatterjee - Complainant(s)

Versus

The A.E & Station Manager, Balurghat Customer Care Centre. W.B.S.E.D. Co. Ltd. P.O. - B.T Park P.S. - Opp.Party(s)

Bidyut Kumar Roy

31 Mar 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
Dakshin Dinajpur, Balurghat, West Bengal
Old Sub jail Market Complex, 2nd Floor, P.O. Balurghat, Dist. Dakshin Dinajpur Pin-733101
 
Complaint Case No. CC/30/2016
 
1. Amitava Chatterjee
Son of Rajat Chatterjee Vill. - Chakbhabani (Opposite to the LIC Office) P.O. & P.S. -Balurghat. Dist.-Dakshin Dinajpur. Pin-733101
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. The A.E & Station Manager, Balurghat Customer Care Centre. W.B.S.E.D. Co. Ltd. P.O. - B.T Park P.S. - Balurghat, Dist.-Dakshin Dinajpur.
The A.E & Station Manager, Balurghat Customer Care Centre. W.B.S.E.D. Co. Ltd. P.O. - B.T Park P.S. - Balurghat, Dist.-Dakshin Dinajpur.
2. TheAssistant Manager, (P & A) Dakshin Dinajpur(D)Division W.B.S.E.D. Co. Ltd. P.O. & P.S.-Balurghat, Dist. - Dakshin Dinajpur.
TheAssistant Manager, (P & A) Dakshin Dinajpur(D)Division W.B.S.E.D. Co. Ltd. P.O. & P.S.-Balurghat, Dist. - Dakshin Dinajpur.
3. The Divisional Engineer & Division Manager,Dakshin Dinajpur(D)Division W.B.S.E.D. Co. Ltd. P.O. & P.S.-Balurghat, Dist. - Dakshin Dinajpur.
The Divisional Engineer & Division Manager,Dakshin Dinajpur(D)Division W.B.S.E.D. Co. Ltd. P.O. & P.S.-Balurghat, Dist. - Dakshin Dinajpur.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Ananta Kumar Kapri PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. Siddhartha Ganguli MEMBER
 HON'BLE MS. Swapna saha Lady Member
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
Dated : 31 Mar 2017
Final Order / Judgement

Judgment & Order  dt. 31.03.2017

 

            Centre to the filing of the instant complaint case is two electric bills – one for the consumption period from March, 2016 to May, 2016 having bill period from June, 2016 to August, 2016 with billing date 31.05.2016 and another for the consumption period June, 2016 to August, 2016 having bill period September, 2016 to November, 2016 with billing date 11.09.2016, whereby the OP No.1 has demanded a sum of Rs. 5,246.12 and Rs.4,125.59 as late payment surcharge (LPSC). According to the complainant, the OP cannot demand payment for LPSC, which has been charged for the period preceding the consumption period as noted herein above for the reason that payment for the said period was made by him in accordance with the order of the Forum passed on 22.12.2015 in a previously instituted case, i.e. CC No. 32/2015. So, the complainant prays for passing an order directing the OP No.1 not to realize any LPSC from the complainant as demanded in the aforesaid two bills and /or adjust the amount already realized from him on account of LPSC in subsequent bills.

 

            Hence, arises this case.

 

            The OPs have entered appearance and filed written statement wherein it is contended mainly that the LPSC has been charged in accordance with the regulations framed by W.B.E.R.C. According to them, there is no merit in the complaint and that’s why the case should be dismissed with costs.

 

            The complainant has filed affidavit-in-chief and has been examined as P.W.-1. The documents admitted in evidence on behalf of the complainant are marked as Ext. Nos. 1, 2 ,3-series, 4-series, 5, 6-series and 7-series as detailed in the list of documents kept in the record. On the other hand, no evidence whatsoever has been laid on behalf of the OP.

 

DECISION  WITH  REASONS

 

            The sole question making round for an answer from this Forum is whether the OPs are entitled to demand LPSC from the complainant for the period which was under consideration in the previously filed case of the complainant i.e. C.C. of 32/2015.

 

            Ld. Lawyer appearing for the OPs has contended that the OPs are entitled to recover LPSC for delayed payment of any sum due to it. He further submits that regulation No. 3.4.3 of West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission guidelines published in notification No:10/WBERC dated 23.09.2003 authorizes the licensee to recover LPSC.

 

               We have heard the submissions of Ld. Lawyers of both sides. Perused the complaint, the written statement, and the evidence on record. Considered all these.

 

              The question which arises for consideration is whether the OPs can demand LPSC for the period which was the subject matter in the previous case. In the previous case the Forum directed the instant complainant to make payment of Rs.17,823/- to the OPs in 10 equal installments with arrear dues, if any. This order was passed by the Forum in that case on 22.12.2015. Since then, neither any appeal nor any revision has been preferred against this order by the OPs. There is no mention in the said order as to payment of LPSC to the OPs for the period which was under consideration by the Forum in that case. It is well- established rule of construction that what is not specifically spelt out in the decree or order of the Court is deemed to be refused by the Court. The Forum did not pass any specific order relating to payment of LPSC to the OPs and this being so we feel no pain to declare emphatically that the Forum declined to grant LPSC to the OPs for the period under its consideration.

 

               Under such circumstances and in view of the facts and materials as discussed above, it appears to us that the OPs are not entitled to LPSC as demanded in two bills dated 31.05.2016 and 11.09.2016.

 

            In the result, the case succeeds.

            Hence, 

                                                O R D E R E D

 

            that the case be and the same is allowed on contest against the OPs with cost which is quantified to be Rs.3,000/-.

 

               The OPs are directed not to realize the LPSC amount from the complainant for the period which was under consideration in C.C. No: 32/2015 including the period mentioned in the two bills of the instant case. He is also directed to adjust the LPSC amount, if any, already realized from the complainant over that period during pendency of that case with any other subsequent bill of the complainant. The OPs are hereby restrained from disconnecting the electric connection of the complainant for non-payment of LPSC for that period i.e. the period which was subject matter of the case, i.e. 32/2015.

 

 

                                                                                                

 

 

            Let a copy of this order be given to the parties concerned free of cost as per C.P. Rules.

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Ananta Kumar Kapri]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MR. Siddhartha Ganguli]
MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MS. Swapna saha]
Lady Member

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.