The complainant’s case in a nutshell is that the complainant’s predecessor in interest had one electric connection granted by the OP. The complainant repeated told the Op to shift the meters in a conspicuous and free access area for removing the meter from inside the old dilapidated premises of the predecessor of the complainant. The complainant had to carry huge over billing burden for a considerable period of over 10 years. However, finally the complainant got new connection on 3rd January, 2014 after removing the old meter in the name of her deceased father in law late Khitish Chandra Goswami. Thereafter, the complainant made application to get back the security deposit and other dues (excess billing by the CESC) . Even she made contact of the Divisional Engineer’s office Serampur, Hooghly . The Divisional office told her to contact the Howrah Regional office .The complainant after made frequent appeal to the Deputy Manager, (Commercial), CESC Ltd. , Howrah Regional office by letter dated 9.5.2014 and 20.8.2014 but the complainant did not get relief from the Ops .The letter are marked A4 and A5. The applicant had filed so many letter to the authority concerned but no result . Hence this case. Thus, the whole crux of this case is getting back the security deposit of old meter.
Op filed Written version denying inter alia all material allegations. The Op raised the plea that billing dispute cannot be considered by this Forum. Secondly, the Op denied all the allegations of complainant made para- wise. It is contended by the Op that in response to this complainant letter dated 20.8.2014 Opposite parties vide its letter dated 22.8.2014, 16.7.2015 requested the complainant to meet officer concerned with relevant documents but the
complainant did not accede to the proposal of the oP. It is also contended that the Opposite parties attended to all her representations made in the year 2003,2007, 2008 and reviewed and adjusted electric bills from time to time. It is also contended that the complainant did not lead any iota of evidence to quantify payment of fees. Hence, the relief prayed by the complainant is vague. The complainant suppressed the material fact for review electric bill from 2003 to 2013. It is also contended that at the time of closing the account outstanding dues was Rs.5,519/-. The bill of erstwhile consumer was Rs.5,421/- and interest was Rs.325/-. Therefore, a sum of Rs.98.05 is still lying recoverable from the complainant . Hence, the petition of complainant should be dismissed.
Complainant filed Xerox copy of letter addressed to CESC on 17.8.2003, Copy of MASD Bill, Copy of offer letter and one electric bill. The complainant also filed evidence on affidiavit. OP on the other filed copy of letter dated 22.8.14 addressed to Shrabani Goswami and Evidence in chief, Written Notes of argument.
POINTS FOR DECISION
- Whether the complainant is a consumer?
- If there is any deficiency on the part of the oP ?
- If complainant is entitled to get any relief?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
All the points are taken up together for easiness of discussion.
It is admitted position that complainant applied for changing her old meter and the same has been done by the oP. Complainant raised allegation of not giving security deposit of the previous meter . Complainant filed only one bill dated 15.1.2014 in the name of the complainant herself. The complainant did not file any bill to show the inflated reading or inflated amount in the name of Khitish Chandra Goswami, who was given old meter. On the other hand, the Op in their WV and argument stated they have adjusted the said amount and Rs.98/- is still due. In such circumstances, complainant did not submit any paper to show and establish that Op did not adjust any amount and Op claimed any inflated amount in the of Khitish Goswami.
All these considerations over the record filed by the complainant and Ops convince us to hold that complainant fails to establish her allegation against Op . As such, the complainant is deserved to get an order of dismissal of the case. Hence it is –
Ordered
That the CC no. 92 of 2015 be and the same is dismissed on contest. No order as to cost.
Let a copy of this order be made over to the parties free of cost.
