District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum
Dakshin Dinajpur, W. Bengal
(Old Sub-Jail Municipal Market Complex, 2nd Floor, Balurghat Dakshin Dinajpur Pin - 733101)
Telefax: (03522)-270013
Present
Shri Sambhunath Chatterjee - President
Miss. Swapna Saha - Member
Shri Siddhartha Ganguli - Member
Consumer Complaint No. 13/2015
Sri Trinath Das
S/o Late Ramnath Das
C/o-“Madhuchakra”
Vill.: Narayanpur (Balurghat Bus Stand)
Mobile No. 9475440912
P.O. & P.S.: Balurghat,
Dist. Dakshin Dinajpur ………………Complainant(s)
V-E-R-S-U-S
The A. E. & Station Manager
Balurghat Customer Care Centre.
W. B. S. E. D. C. Ltd.
P.O & P.S.: Balurghat.
Dist.: Dakshin Dinajpur. …………………Opposite Party
For complainant …………… - Shri Bidyut Kr. Roy, Ld. Adv. &
- Shri Anish Das, Ld. Adv
For OP …………… - Shri Sudip Chatterjee, Ld. Adv.
Date of Filing : 19.02.2015
Date of Disposal : 17.08.2015
Contd…P/2
Judgment & Order dt. 17.08.2015
Facts of the case in brief are that one Trinath Das filed a complaint u/s 12 of the CP Act, 1986 with allegation that the complainant is a consumer of electricity under the OP and the complainant is enjoying 2 (two) connections one for commercial purpose and other for domestic use. The complainant stated that there is / was no outstanding dues against both the connections but while the complainant went for depositing the bills amount for the months from December, 2014 to February, 2015 amounting to Rs.11,190/- then employee of the OP decline to receive the said bill amount and claimed that until and unless outstanding dues bill for Rs.15,452/- is paid they will not receive the amount for the above noted period. Since there was no outstanding due and OP ever demanded any outstanding at any point of time.
The complainant paid the full amount towards the bill amount of Rs.12,220/- for the months of June to August, 2014 and issued money receipts for Rs.1,220/- only instead of Rs. 12,220/- vide money receipt No.129800668140 issued by the company duly affixing revenue stamp wherefrom it is established that the OP received Rs. 12,220/- but erroneously put the amount in money receipt as Rs. 1,220/- instead of Rs. 12,220/-. Since the OP demanded illegally and in arbitrary manner the outstanding amount as such the complainant had to file this case for redress of his grievance with the allegation that the OP committed deficiency in service by illegally claiming the outstanding amount.
OP has contested the case by filing a written version whereby the OP denied all the material allegations made by the complainant. The OP specifically denied that the employee who received the amount in cash counter to the tune of Rs.1,220/- not as claimed by the complainant as Rs. 12,220/-. There was no deficiency in service from the side of the OP.
Contd…P/3
It was specifically stated by OP that for the domestic connection ID No. 43108034 a bill had been issued for the months of June to August, 2014 of Rs. 12,220/- in the name of Trinath Das and after receiving that bill the complainant deposited amount of Rs.1,220/- in the cash section of W.B.S.E.D.C.L. Balurghat and money receipt No. 129800668140 on 9.1.2014 was issued from the cash section in favour of complainant and that time he never raised any objection. Subsequently, on 2.1.2015 after lapse of 2 months the complainant filed a complaint stating that he actually deposited Rs. 12,220/- on 9.10.2014 but receipt was given only for Rs. 1,220/- and after receiving a complaint an enquiry was held thoroughly but no excess amount was found and no irregularity was found and there was no negligence on the part of OP. In view of facts and circumstances of stated above the OP has prayed for dismissal of the case.
On the basis of the pleadings of the respective parties following points are to be determined:-
- Whether the complainant paid Rs. 12,220/- or Rs. 1,220/- for the period of June to August, 2014?
- Was it brought to the notice of the OP immediately after the said payment?
- Was the cashier negligent in issuing the receipt of Rs. 1,220/- instead of Rs. 12,220/-?
- Has the complainant before leaving the cash counter detected such mistake and brought to the notice to the concerned authority?
- Is the complainant entitled to get relief as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
All the points are taken together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of the facts.
From the materials on record it is admitted fact that the complainant is a consumer and maintains two (2) connections in respect of his premises one is for commercial and another for domestic. OP used to send bills from time to time and the complainant used to pay the amount never any such dispute arose on earlier occasions.
Contd…P/4
It is admitted fact that the complainant paid of Rs. 12,220/- for commercial connection on selfsame day he allegedly paid the amount in cash department of WBSEDCL. The complainant claimed that he paid Rs. 12,220/- for domestic connection but the person who received the amount i.e. cashier issued him a receipt of Rs. 1,220/-. The complainant before leaving the cash counter did not check the receipt where it was clearly stated that cashier received only Rs. 1,220/- instead of Rs. 12,220/-. Though, Ld. Lawyer for the complainant emphasized that on the receipt of Rs. 1,220/- a revenue stamp was affixed which clearly shows that the amount was received in the cash counter. Ld. Lawyer for the complainant argued that the complainant is a reputed businessman of the locality. He does not make any false claim that he did not pay Rs. 12,220/- and since there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP the complainant has prayed for allowing the complaint petition as well as other reliefs.
Ld. Lawyer for the OP submits that the complainant claimed that he paid Rs.12,220/- but the said fact was brought to the notice of the OP after two months from the date of said payment. After receiving the said complaint the OP made thorough enquiry in their department and he could not find any excess amount since the amount now a days’ received from the computer, it is very easy to detect to any fault occurs at the time of receiving amount and the same is recorded in the computer. That apart, after closure of the counter several checks are made on each day and if there would have been any mistake certainly said fact could have been detected but here in this case i.e. the complainant did not lodge any complaint immediately after receiving a receipt of Rs.1,220/- and the complainant himself was negligent since in front of the counter there is specific caution that one should check the receipt properly before leaving the cash counter.
In view of the said fact that Ld. Lawyer for the OP emphasized that it is hardly believable that a person will accept the receipt of
Contd…P/5
Rs.1,220/- after the payment of Rs.12,220/-, and this is a false story manufactured by the complainant to avoid the payment of outstanding dues as such the Ld. Lawyer for the OP has prayed for dismissal of the case.
Considering the submission of the respective parties it appears that the complainant has two connections one for domestic and other for commercial purpose in his premises. It is also admitted fact that the complainant paid the amount of Rs.12,220/- for his commercial connection and he got a receipt of Rs.12,220/- from the said cash counter. The complainant alleged that he has also paid the amount of Rs.12,220/- for the period of June to August, 2014 and he got a receipt of Rs.1,220/-. It is not at all possible for anyone to believe that the one would accept the receipt of Rs.1,220/- after payment of Rs.12,220/-. That apart, the complainant did not detect the said fact to inform to the OP immediately after the said mistake committed by the concerned employee of the cash counter. From the complaint case it transpires that the complainant came to know to the said fact while he went to pay for subsequent months after the lapse of two months while the cashier refused to receive the amount with the plea that he cannot accept the bill amount unless the outstanding amount is paid. He is in his own hand writing wrote the amount of outstanding dues. Since now-a-days it is usual practice in respect of preparation of bill in the areas under the jurisdiction of W.B.S.E.D.C.L., person who examines the meter preparing the bill on the spot and it is not possible for him to mention the outstanding amount in the bill. As such whenever the complainant went to pay the subsequent bill amount was shown in the computer which clearly mentioned that amount remained outstanding. Accordingly, the said amount was demanded by the concerned employee.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the case as made out by the complainant it cannot be said that
Contd…P/6
there was any deficiency in service on the part of OP, on the contrary, there was an act of negligence on the part of the complainant for which he should suffer for his fault.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case we do not find any substance to allow the claim by the complainant of deficiency in rendering service made by the OP or the complainant will be entitled to get any relief as prayed for.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
that the instant petition of complaint CC No.13 of 2015 is dismissed on contest without any cost.
The order of injunction granted earlier is hereby vacated.
Let a plain copy of this order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost.
Dictated & corrected
………Sd/-….…….
(Sambhunath Chatterjee)
President
We concur,
……Sd/-..…… ………Sd/-……..
(S. Saha) (S. Ganguli)
Member Member
- Date when free copy was issued ……………………
- Date of application for certified copy ……………………
- Date when copy was made ready ……………………
- Date of delivery ……………………
FREE COPY [Reg. 18(6)]
- Mode of dispatch ……………………
- Date of dispatch ……………………
-x-
