IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No.  CC /155/2014.
 Date of Filing:      26.11.2014.                                                                         Date of Final Order: 23.12.2015.

 
Complainant:     Akbar Ali, S/O Soyed Ali, Vill.& P.O. Gudhia, P.S.& Dist. Murshidabad.
        
    
-Vs-
Opposite Party: The Station Manager, WBSEDCL, Daulatabad, P.O.& P.S. Doulatabad.
           Dist. Murshidabad.  
        

                       Present:  Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya   ………………….President.                                 
                                         Sri Samaresh Kumar Mitra ……………………..Member.            
              Smt. Pranati Ali ……….……………….……………. Member
 
FINAL ORDER
Smt. Pranati Ali, Presiding Member.

Brief fact of the complaint case u/s 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 is that the complainant is a consumer of the OP/Station Manager, Daulatabad, WBSEDCL having a electric service connection line being No. A-1123 for a shallow machine to supply water for cultivation. According to the complainant he used to pay the bills regularly, but suddenly bill for the month of February 2014 to September, 2014 amounting to Rs.27930/- was received by him, which has been showing outstanding amount for the month of December, 2001 to June 2005, November 2012 and August 2013 to November 2013 which is illegal and baseless, as because, he already paid the outstanding bills. The complainant also stated that the transformer, from which said service connection has been connected, was burnt in the year 2001, which was not replaced till July, 2005. So, the OP is not entitled to demand the energy charges for that period. After that, several times the complainant requested to the OP to solve the matter, but the OP did not pay any heed to the matter. Then the complainant was bound to file this case in this Forum for proper redress with a prayer for direction to the OP to make a proper accounting for energy charges and also to direct for installation of new transformer along with to pay a sum of Rs.50, 000/- for harassment and Rs.50, 000/- for loss of crops and mental pain.
On the other hand, the OP/Station Manager, Daulatabad CCC, WBSEDCL, appeared in this case by filing written version, where he denied all the allegations of deficiency in service raised in the complaint by the complainant. According to the OP, the complainant is a S.T.W Consumer and he is defaulter in payment of sum of Rs.20, 128/- for the period of 12/2001 to 6/2005 and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
The only point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for or not and whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OP as alleged or not.  

                                                       Decision with reasons.
The complainant in support of his case has submitted Xerox copies of bill, letters etc. The OP also submitted duplicate bills in support of his side.
Perused all the documents submitted by the complainant in the record, we observed that there was no copy of disputed bill i.e February 2014 to September, 2014 amounting to Rs.27,930/- along with outstanding charges for the month of December, 2001 to June 2005, based on which the complaint filed this case. The complaint submitted only one bill for the month of December, 2013, which also shows the outstanding for the month of December, 2001 to June, 2005. It is evident that the outstanding is continuing from the actual period, not suddenly in the bill for the month of February, 2014, as stated by the complainant. The same bill was submitted by the complainant as evident that all dues was cleared, but we observed that one note was given by the OP Personnel that for the month of August 2005 to December, 2013 was cleared excluding the disputed period i.e December, 2001 to June, 2005. So, the complainant has to clear the dues of that period.
On the other hand, regarding outstanding amount, we are in the dark as because the complainant did not submit the disputed bill based on which he mentioned the dues amount was Rs.27, 930/- whereas the OP submitted their duplicate bills one of those is the disputed bill, where also the disputed amount was not found.
Regarding period of burnt out of transformer, raised by the complainant was not clear to us. The complainant submitted three letters, those are also evident that the complainant has a long period outstanding, but no clear picture is found regarding the period of burn of the transformer. Rather, the complainant used to consume electricity through new transformer. So, the prayer for installation of new transformer by the complainant is evident as baseless.
On the basis of above discussions, we can safely conclude that the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation.
Considering the above facts and circumstances of this particular case as discussed above, we have no other alternative but to conclude that the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as such this complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Hence,
                                                                         Ordered
that the Consumer Complaint No. 155/2014 be and the same is hereby dismissed on contest. There is no order as to cost.                         
Let a plain copy of this order be made available and be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties on contest in person, Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand under proper acknowledgment / be sent forthwith under ordinary post  to the concerned parties as per rules, for information and necessary action.