West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/91/2012

Badal Das - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Station Manager, W.B.S.E.D.C.L. - Opp.Party(s)

19 Oct 2012

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

Complaint case No. 91/2012                                              Date of disposal: 19/10/2012                               

BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT :  Mr. K. S. Samajder.

                                                     MEMBER :  Mrs. Debi Sengupta.

                                                     MEMBER :  Mr. Kapot Chattopadhyay.

 

For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Mr. S. Bhattacharya. Advocate.

For the Defendant/O.P.S.                          : Mr. D. D. Mahapatra. Advocate.

       Badal Das, S/o-Gobinda Prasad Das, Vill-Palbari(Ganapati Nagar), P.O.-

                      Midnapore, P.S.-Kotwali, Dist Paschim Medinipur.………….Complainant.

                                                              Vs.

1. The Station Manager, W.B.S.E.D.C.L., Burge Town(Near Bus stand), P.O.-Midnapore, P.S.-Kotwali,  Dist-Paschim Medinipur
2. The Assistant Manager, W.B.S.E.D.C.L., Burge Town (Near Bus stand), P.O.-Midnapore, P.S.-Kotwali, Dist-Paschim Medinipur …………………..Ops.

         The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows

        The complainant in this case claimed that he is a consumer under the Op. No.1 and the service connection was installed on 4/5/11.  Since installations of the electricity connection the Op. No.1 did not issue any bill towards consumption of energy by the complainant even requests make by the complainant.  Thereafter, the complainant sent a lawyer’s notice to the Op. No.1 for sending electric bill but to no effect.

     So, the complainant prayed for a direction for sending the bill and not to disconnect the electricity connection of the complainant.  The complainant also prayed for compensation for deficiency in service and litigation cost.

      The Ops contested the case by filing a joint written objection in which the Ops. admitted that the complainant is a consumer under them.  The specific contention of the Ops. was that due to software problem, bills could not be generated.  However, the bill was prepared on 07/7/12 for the consumption period from 04/5/11 to 28/6/12 which was sent to the complainant and the complainant duly paid the amount of the bill.  The Ops contended that there was no deficiency in service or willful latches on the part of the Ops.

Contd……………….P/2.

 

- ( 2 ) -

    So, the Ops prayed for dismissal of the case.

                  The only point for consideration is that whether the petitioner is entitled to get the reliefs claimed. 

Decisions with reasons

      Admitted position is that the complainant is a consumer under the Ops.  It is also admitted by the parties that since after installation of service connection to the house of the complainant on 04/5/11, the Ops did not send any bill towards consumption of electricity to the complainant and only on 07/7/12 the bill was prepared for the consumption period from 04/5/11 to 28/6/11 and the complainant duly paid the amount of the bill.  In this case, there is no dispute regarding payment of bill.  The dispute is regarding non-preferring the bill by the Ops.  The Ops contended that due to software problem the bill could not be prepared in time. We are of the view that this is quite natural and since there was no disruption or disconnection of the electricity connection of the complainant and that, the complainant duly paid the amount of the bill, the complainant should not and cannot have any grievance. The main grievance which the complainant had and which prompted him to file the case was for none preferring of the bill by the Ops.  But that grievance can be said to have addressed because after the software problem for which the bill could not be prepared in time was removed, the bill was preferred and the complainant duly paid the amount of the bill.  Therefore, it cannot be said that there was any deficiency of service on the part of the Ops.  Naturally the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation or litigation cost since there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops and the delay in the matter of preparation of the bill was beyond the control of the Ops.  We have already found that the other prayers i.e. prayer for direction upon the Ops  not to disconnect the electricity connection of the complainant and to send bills for the consumption made by the complainant, become redundant since there was no disconnection and the bill has already been preferred by the Op and paid by the complainant.

     During hearing Ld. Lawyer for the complainant submitted that for mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant, the complainant should be compensated and litigation cost should be awarded.

      We cannot concur with such views of the Ld. Lawyer for the complainant since there is nothing in the petition of complaint regarding suffering of any mental agony and harassment by the complainant.  Moreover, as aforesaid, the delay of in preferring the bill was due to the software problem as stated by the Ops and this point has not been challenged on behalf of the complainant.  Needless to say that software problem may take place at any stage and for such circumstances the service cannot be said to be deficient.

Contd……………….P/3.

 

- ( 3 ) -

In the above premises the case should fail.

                                    Hence, it is

                                                      ordered,

                                                                     that the complaint case No. 91/2012 stands dismissed on contest but considering  the circumstances without any cost.  Parties be supplied with free copies of the judgement.    

Dic. & Corrected by me.

                                             

              

         President                     Member                        Member                                   President

                                                                                                                              District Forum

                                                                                                                         Paschim Medinipur.