West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/179/2016

Razun Nisa - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

23 May 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.                             

Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

Pulak Kumar Singha

and

Sagarika Sarkar, Member

   

Complaint Case No.179/2017

 

Razzun Nisa, W/o-Mehadi Hussain, Vill-Debalpur,

P.O.-Kharagpur & P.S.-Kharagpur(T),

Dist-Paschim Medinipur…..….………Complainant

Versus

The Station Manager, Malancha Gr. Electric Supply, WBSEDCL, at Lal Banglow, Malancha Road,  P.O. &  P.S.-Kharagpur,  District Paschim Medinipur.………....…Opposite. Party.

 

 For the Complainant:  Mr. Somasish Panda, Advocate.

For the O.P.              :  Mr. Swapan Kumar Bhattacharya, Advocate.     

 

Decided on: - 24/05/2017

                               

ORDER

                     Sagarika Sarkar, Member – The instant case is filed u/s-12 of the C.P. Act, 1986, (though wrongly mentioned that section 2(i)(b)(i) of C.P. Act) by Mrs. Razzun Nisa alleging deficiency in service on the part of the above mentioned O.P.

                     Case of the complainant, in brief, is that, in order to earn her livelihood the complainant had set a ice factory under named Nica Ice Plant at Debalpur Kalkati, ward no.06, Hospital Road, Kharagpur, Dist-Paschim Midnapore. She had the connection of electric supply from the O.P.-Electric Supply i.e. Malancha Gr. Electric Supply, WBSEDCL, in her ice factory against payment of monthly bill as she consumed   

Contd………..P/2

                                                                                    

 

                                            ( 2 )

the energy. She further stated that she used to run her business from January, to July and rest of the month of the year her business premises remained close due to less demand of ice. The complainant had stated that she had been paying the bill raised by the O.P. raised bill for the month of August which was containing a hefty amount. It is stated by the complainant that on 01/09/2016 she deposited a cheque bearing no.957295 dated 29/09/2016 to the O.P. towards payment of bill for the month of August, 2016. It is further stated by the complainant that the said cheque was dishonoured due to insufficient fund and having been informed so she rushed to the office of O.P. and made payment in cash on 27/10/2016. However the complainant was intimated by the O.P.  official that there was every possibility of disconnection of electricity if she does not deposit the amount of disputed bill. The complainant specifically stated that inspite of request for correction of the disputed bill as therefore revised amount the O.P. did not take any step to that which constitutes deficiency in service on the part of O.P. Accordingly she has prayed for direction upon the O.P. to send fresh bill for the month of August and September, 2016 to pass restrained order about disconnection of electricity, to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and physical strain suffered  by the complainant and to pay Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation.

                  The O.P. has contested the case by filing a w.o.

                    Denying and disputing on material allegation as level against them stating, interalia, that the complainant in to pay the disputed bill since she consumed the electricity to that extent.  Accordingly the O.P. has prayed for dismissed of the petition of complaint with cost.

                  Both sides adduced evidence followed by cross-examination and reply.

                   In course of hearing of the argument Ld. Advocate for the complainant has contested that the bill raised by the O.P. for the month of August, 2016 is very much inflated and same should be rectified by raising a revised bill.   

Points for decisions :

1.Is the complainant is consumer under the O.P. ?

2.Is there deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. ?

3.Is the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for ?

 

Contd………..P/3

                                            

                                             ( 3 )

 

Decisions with reasons :

      Point No.1.

      The complainant availed service provided by the O.P. against the payment of consideration and thus became consumer under the O.P.

      Point no.1 in answered accordingly in the affirmative.

Point No.2.

                 It appears from the record that the complainant has alleged that the O.P. raised inflated bill for the month of August and September, 2016 which has not been paid by her in full. It is evident that as on 28/04/2017 the outstanding amount remains Rs.1,83,902.75/- . The complainant though alleged of inflated bill but no file any supportive document to show that the actual consumed unit are less than that showed in the disputed bill.  It is true that the complainant has prayed for inspection of the meter but the same does not necessarily mean that the meter reading is defective. Hence the allegation for inflated bill has not been substantiated.

                 Point no.2 is answered accordingly.  

Point No.3.

The complainant has prayed for inspection of meter reading for the month of August and September but it is difficult to understand that how is it possible to raise bill for the months of August and September by reading the meter at present time. Ld. Advocate for the O.P. submitted that the complainant is to deposit at least 50% of the disputed bill and thereafter to make prayer for inspection of the meter. In view of such submission restrain order may be passed subject to payment of Rs.63,902.75/- by the complainant to the O.P. within one month from the date of order.

As regards compensation the complainant failed to substantiate that the O.P. caused any suffering to the complainant by deficiency in service. Hence the prayer for compensation is rejected.

As regards the prayer for litigation cost we hold the same view and therefore the prayer is rejected.

Point no.3 is answered accordingly.

In the result the petition of complaint succeeds in part.

                                         Hence, it is

ORDERED

                                                         that consumer complaint case being no.179/2016 is allowed in part on contest but in the circumstances without cost.

Contd………..P/4

                                             

                                            ( 4 )

 

              The O.P. is directed not to disconnect the electricity connection having consumer no.212312988 if the complainant  pays out of the total bill amount of Rs.1,83,902.75/-, Rs.63,902.75/- within one month from the date of order and if the complainant pays the remaining balance amount of Rs.1,20,000/- to the O.P. by five equal monthly installments of Rs.24,000/- each, 1^st of such installment is to be paid on 23/07/2017 and the remaining amount shall be paid by next four months along with the current monthly electric bill by the end of each months.

               

              Let plain copy of order be given to the parties free of cost.

                Dictated and Corrected by me

                     

                          Member                                           Member                                     President

                                                                                                                                 District Forum

                                                                                                                              Paschim Medinipur