West Bengal

Dakshin Dinajpur

CC/64/2017

Sri Ganesh Chandra Pramanik, S/O- Late Lakshman Ch. Pramanik - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Station Manager, Tapan Customer Care Centre - Opp.Party(s)

Kamalika Pramanik

16 Mar 2018

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/64/2017
( Date of Filing : 18 Dec 2017 )
 
1. Sri Ganesh Chandra Pramanik, S/O- Late Lakshman Ch. Pramanik
Vill & P.O.- Kardaha, P.S.- Tapan, Pin- 733142
Dakshin Dinajpur
West Bengal
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. The Station Manager, Tapan Customer Care Centre
P.O. & P.S.- Tapan
Dakshin Dinajpur
West Bengal
2. The Divisional Manager, W.B.S.E.D.C.L.
P.O.- Beltalapark, P.S.- Balurghat, Pin- 733103
Dakshin Dinajpur
West Bengal
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Shyamalendu Ghosal PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MS. Swapna saha Lady Member
 HON'BLE MR. Subhas Chandra Chakraborty MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:Kamalika Pramanik, Advocate
For the Opp. Party:
Dated : 16 Mar 2018
Final Order / Judgement

Repudiation of prayer for waiving LPSC by the OP No. 1 in the instant case as alleged by the complainant has galvanised the complainant to lodge this complaint to get redressal u/s 12 of the CP Act, 1986.

            Fact of the case may be epitomised as follows:

            The complainant has got a permanent STW connection bearing Consumer ID No.433068104 in the name of the Ganesh Chandra Pramanik, Karda, Tapan in the district of Dakshin Dinajpur from the Station Manager, Balurghat Customer Care Centre, W.B.S.E.D.C. Ltd. Dakshin Dinajpur. The complainant has got an exorbitant bill with LPSC in 2012 on 11.12.2012 and prayed for waiving LPSC. According to the averment of the complainant the local authority of W.B.S.E.D.C. Ltd., Tapan has assured to waive the LPSC in the next bill, if he would pay Rs.26,000/- and so that no disconnection was to be made in his STW connection as the complainant is a peasant and the electrical connection is a part of his livelihood. But they have done nothing. The OP paid Rs.15,000/- on 29.2.2016 and STW connection which was disconnected was reconnected further by the OP No. 1. But, the OP further sent a bill dt. 18.11.2017 amounting to Rs.95,123/- of which Rs.61,741/- was LPSC. Under the circumstances, the complainant has to come to this Forum for redressal. He has provided all the documents in support to his statements which are kept in the file.

 

            The OP No. 1 in its first written statement has denied all the allegations which seems to be fictitious and fraudulent to the OP. But the OP cannot substantiate with documents the total LPSC amount of Rs.63,597.27 levied upon the complainant. Though, the OP has recognised the complainant as their bonafide consumer bearing ID No. as stated above.

 

            Now, the question arises whether the deficiency in service under the CP Act, has been done by the OP in raising the exorbitant bill in favour of the complainant.

DECISION  WITH  REASONS

           

            In course of interrogation during the argument the OP has stated to the Forum that a bit of miscalculation may have been done in respect of LPSC and they want to make an amicable settlement of the dispute in presence of the Forum. The OP has given the proposal of waiving all the LPSC till date and a fresh bill is to be raised within 15 days from the date of judgment. The complainant accorded to the proposal and requested further to the OP to give an opportunity to the consumer to pay up to date bill in four equal monthly installments. The OP has agreed upon the request of the complainant. Accordingly, the OP requested not to impose any amount of compensation on the part of OP as the problem is going to be solved amicably.

            Hence,

O R D E R E D

            The OP is directed to prepare a fresh bill showing the consumption units up to date within 15 days from the date of this order without imposing LPSC up to date.

 

            The OP is also directed to give an opportunity to pay the amount of the revised bill in four equal monthly installments without levying any LPSC in this four installment also.

 

            The complainant is also directed to repay all the dues of the fresh bill in four equal monthly installments which are to be decided by the OP from the date of receipt of the bill from the OP.

 

           

             No compensation and litigation cost is allowed as the complainant agreed upon the amicable settlement.

 

           

 

            The case be and the same succeeds on contest.

 

 

            Let a copy of the judgment be furnished free of cost to the parties concerned.

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Shyamalendu Ghosal]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MS. Swapna saha]
Lady Member
 
[HON'BLE MR. Subhas Chandra Chakraborty]
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.