In the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Murshidabad

Berhampore, Murshidabad.

Case No. CC/121 /2015

Date of filing: 31/08/2015                                                                                                                                       Date of Final Order: 17/06/2016

Hazarat Mondal.

S/O- Lt. Musa Mondal.

Vill.-Khejuria, P.O.- Nagra.

P.S.-Nabagram.Dist- Murshidabad,                                                                   

                 - Vs-

Station  Manager,

Nabagram. Customer Care Centre, W.B.S.E.D.C.L,

P.O.& P.S.- Nabagram, Dist.- Murshidabad.

                                            Before:     Hon’ble President, Anupam Bhattacharyya.           

                                                              Hon’ble Member, Samaresh Kumar Mitra.

                                                              Hon’ble Member, Pranati Ali.

FINAL ORDER

Samaresh KumarMitra,Member.

The facts of the case as enumerated in the complaintpetition is that the complainant being aconsumer of the OP running a deep tube well for agriculture purpose and paying bills regularly. The OP without any reason disconnected his electric line so he compelled to stop the operation of his minideep and faced heavy loss in his cultivation. During the non operative period he applied for electric connection on 19.12.2013 for reconnection of his electric line. Before reconnection he paid a bill amounting to Rs.1400/- and Rs.100/- thereafter the OP checking the A/C of the complainant whether there was any outstanding dues or not expressed that “No outstanding” upto 19.12.2013 and the OP passed an order for reconnection of the electric line of the complainant. Thereafter the OP sent a miracle bill amounting to Rs. 90195/- on 11.02.2015. Again the OP sent another bill amounting to Rs.92056/- on 16.03.2015. As the OP expressed that there is no outstanding, so he sent the bills imaginary that leads to deficiency of service. The complainant several times requested the OP to solve the above matter by mutual settlement but the OP did not pay any heed. Then the complainant bound to send a legal notice but the OP did not show any importance regarding the matter so the complainant filed the instant complaint before the Forum for redressal as prayed in the prayer portion of the complaint.

Despite receiving notice the OP did not appear so the proceeding run ex-parte against him.

The complainant filed affidavit in chief in which he assailed that OP disconnected the power connection of the minideep of this complainant as a result he suffered heavy loss in his cultivation. Then he applied for reconnection in the said minideep and deposited the amounts Rs.1400/- & Rs.100/- and the OP assured No outstanding as on 19.12.2013 and reconnected the power supply of the complainant after a long time. Thereafter the OP sent the fictitious bills amounting to Rs.90,195/- on11.02.2015 & Rs 92056/- on 16.03.2015.Getting these huge bills the complainant wrote letters to the OP but he did not respond then he filed the instant complaint for redressal.

The complainant advanced ex-parte argument by his agent and adduced a few documents.

                From the discussion herein above, we find the following Issues/Points for consideration.

ISSUES/POINTS   FOR   CONSIDERATION

1). Whether the Complainant Hazarat Mondal is a ‘Consumer’ of the Opposite Party?

 2).Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?

3).Whether the OPs carried on unfair trade practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards the       Complainant?

4).Whether the complainant proved his case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to him?

DECISION WITH REASONS

   In the light of discussions here in above we find that the issues/points should be decided based on the above perspectives.

(1).Whether the complainant Hazarat Mondal is a ‘Consumer’ of the opposite party?

     From the materials on record it is transparent that the Complainant is a “Consumer” as provided by the spirit of section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. As the complainant herein is enjoying electricity supplied by the OP Company and it is admitted by the OP Company being the service provider.

(2).Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?

                Both the complainant and opposite party are residents/carrying on business within the district of Murshidabad. The complaint valued within Rs.20,00,000/- limit of this Forum. So, this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case.              

 (3).Whether the opposite party carried on Unfair Trade Practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards the Complainant?

             The opposite party being the largest Electric Supply Company throughout the state having a  lot of offices, power stations, substations and power generating stations decorated with a lot of expert hands and running its business with goodwill for a long period and providing/rendering service for development of society as well as implementing a lot of Govt. programs. So the role of OP Company for the development of the society is unquestionable.

                The OP herein is the Station Manager of an office of the largest electric supply company throughout the State of W.B. The Company WBSEDCL running its business throughout the state except territorial jurisdiction of Kolkata Corporation. The OP Company is providing power in the rural areas in different projects for a long period. That is why the consumers in the rural areas are highly grateful to the Company. While providing powers throughout the state it also suffers from many discrepancies. Like not sending/ preparing bills in due time or sending bills for a period when the powers are discontinued and not taking reading regularly as a result the consumers suffers from paying accumulated units at a higher rate. As a consequence the consumers suffer a lot and make their grievances for remedy.

              After perusing the case record it appears that the power supply of the complainant was disconnected by the OP and subsequently it was reconnected in accordance with the prayer of the complainant dated 19.12.2013. Before reconnection the OP received arrear bill for the period 01.2006.to 03.2006 amounting to Rs.1440/- & reconnection charge amounting to Rs.100/-on 11.11.2013.  In the back side of the bill payment receipt it is written that No outstanding with initial signature dated 19.12.2013, but no designation seal. If it is so then there is no question of collecting arrear bills for the period Apr. 2005, Jun2005- May 2006 amounting to Rs.92056/-. The complainant filed another bill receipt dated 26.02.2014 for the bill period 12,2005 to 12,2005 amounting to Rs.468/-. After perusing the bills it appears that there is arrear bills due for the period 2005 to 2006 for which the power supply of the complainant was disconnected. But reason not known to us why the OP despite collecting the arrear dues at a time or allowing installment reconnected the power supply of the complainant with remark ‘No outstanding’. The version of the OP was very much essential for proper adjudication of the case. In this proceeding the complaint filed in affidavit is unchallenged one. Only the version of the complainant and a few documents that produced by the complainant is taken into consideration while adjudicating the complaint. The role of the OP is not satisfactory regarding the collection of dues of this complainant. The Meter card depicts the reading 00817 units as on 01.03.2015 and 005839 units as on 25.04.2016.The documents that produced by the complainant clearly speaks that the bill is not prepared in relation to the reading of the meter card. The bill dated 03.06.2015 speaks that bill month Aug,2006, current reading date 15.5.2015 total charges Rs.1928/- amount due within due date Rs.97452/-. But there is no mention regarding the consumption of units & consumption period. The outstanding dues may be unpaid but it was the duty of the OP to produce the bills during the unpaid period from which we can infer that complainant is liable to pay those unpaid bills.

        At this juncture we are in the opinion to reject the outstanding dues that the liability arises after 10 years. But the complainant is under obligation to pay present bills in accordance with the consumption. The OP must look into the matter so that accumulation may not occur due their negligence/ deficiency of service for which the complainant have to suffer from mental pain & agony. It is the responsibility of the OP to visit the premises of the complainant regularly to get the actual reading and prepare bill so that the complainant can meet the expenditure.

 So we may come into this conclusion that the demand of the OP is not cogent & at per. 

       The inaction/negligence/ discrepancies of the O.P. Company tantamount to deficiency of service for which the consumers are suffering a lot.

4). Whether the complainant proved his case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to him?

            The discussion made herein before, we have no hesitation to come in a conclusion that the complainant is able to prove his case. So the Opposite Party is under liability to accept the bill amount deducting the outstanding dues for the period 2005 &2006 and normalize the billing dispute within 45 days from the date of receiving the order.

                                                                                         ORDER

  Hence it is ordered that the Complaint Case No.121/2015 be and the same is allowed in part ex-parte against the Opposite Party with a direction to the OP to accept the disputed bill dated 11.02.2015 & 16.3.2015 deducting the outstanding dues for the period 2005 & 2006. and after getting the said amount normalize the billing dispute within 45 days from the receiving this order.

           The current bills are to be prepared in accordance with the reading as reflected in the meter card. The OP should take appropriate steps so that the consumer should not meet such a liability to pay bills of huge accumulated units and disconnection for nonpayment of such bills.

No other reliefs are awarded to the complainant.

            At the event of failure to comply with the order the Opposite Party shall pay cost @ Rs.50/- for each day’s delay, if caused, on expiry of the aforesaid 45 days by depositing the accrued amount, if any,  in the fund of   “Consumer Legal Aid Account”.

Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their Ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/sent by ordinary post forthwith, for information & necessary action.

           Dictated and corrected by me.

                  Member,                                                    Member,                                  President.