West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/5/2017

Srimatya Lakshibala Jana - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

04 Sep 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

     Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

      Pulak Kumar Singha, Member

and

    Sagarika Sarkar, Member. 

 

Complaint Case No.05/2017

 

Srimatya Lakshibala Jana, W/o-late Rathi Kanta Jana, Vill-Kanaisagar,

P.O.-Narma, P.S.-Narayangarh,

District-Paschim Medinipur..………..……Complainant.

Vs.

1. The Station Manager, WBSEDCL office, Narayangarh,

                                P.O. & P.S.-Narayangarh, Dist-Paschim Medinipur

2. The Regional Manager, Paschim Medinipur Region, Electric Supply,                                WBSEDCL, Administrative Building, 2^nd Floor, Power House Complex,                                                       P.O.-Midnapore, P.S.-Kotwali, Dist-Paschim Medinipur;
3. The Chairman, WBSEDCL, Bidyut Bhavan, (3^rd Floor), Salt lake City,                                     Block-A,  Bidhannagar, Kolkata-700091.....……….….Opp. Parties.

                                                    

                For the Complainant  : Mr. Asit Uthasini Roy, Advocate.

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

 

Decided on 04/09/2017

                               

ORDER

            Pulak Kumar Singha, Member   

 

                     Complainant files  this case u/s 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

  Complainant’s case is that the complainant is a consumer of O.Ps. having electric connection of mini deep tube well being consumer I.D. no.212346652. Electric bill of said mini deep tube well was due from January to March, 2016 of Rs.34,459/- and as

                                                                                                        Contd……………P/2

 

 

( 2 )

per prayer of complainant O.P. allowed to pay such payment by way of three installments and payable amount was of Rs.11,487/- in each installment.  Complainant paid one installment amount of Rs.11,487/- on 14/03/2016 but due to  serious illness of complainants husband and lack of fund rest two installments are not paid by complainant. Actual consumer i.e. husband of complainant died on  15/10/2016 and during life time  consumer Rati Kanta Jana raised objection for disputed bill  of Rs.34,459/- and  made a prayer before O.P. no.1 for  replacement of new meter in place of defective  meter. O.P.  changed the meter.  Complainant by written intimation on 03/03/2016  informed O.P. no.1 that his  said mini deep tube well closed  for supply of water.  O.P. without taking of meter  reading send bill dated 04/11/2016 of Rs.40,707/-. On behalf  of complainant made an application for correction of said bill but in vain  rather O.P.  raised another bill dated 13/12/2016 of Rs.42,534/- and subsequently send a bill of Rs.47,251/- but due  to lack of fund complainant did not pay such disputed bills. Complainant appears before this Forum for getting redressal as per prayer of his complaint.

O.Ps. have contested the case by filing written statement denying the allegations of complainant stating inter alia  that this case is not  maintainable, O.Ps. replaced the old 3 phase meter  on 18/02/2016, there is no question of deficiency. This O.Ps. pray for dismissal of the case.      

                                                  Points for decision

1. Whether the claim is maintainable ?
2. Is the present case is maintainable ?
3. Are the opposite parties deficient in rendering service ?
4. Is the complainant entitled to get the relief as prayed ?    

                   

Decision with reasons

      All the points are taken together for the convenience and brevity and consideration.  Complainant to prove her case adduced evidence and submitted documents and she was examined as P.W.-1 and documents are (exhibit 1 to 6). She was also cross examined by O.Ps. O.Ps. have adduced no evidence on their behalf.  Complainant’s husband was the consumer of O.Ps. and as legal heir complainant can file complaint and  she also the beneficiary of consumer, so the  consumer complainant is maintainable. It appears from the documents and complainant also admitted that the bill for the period January, 2016 to March, 2016 of  Rs.34,459/- was  due to death of consumer Ratikanta Jana, husband of present complainant. Due  to paucity of fund and as per prayer of complainant O.P. allowed three installments for payment of said amount and payable amount of Rs.11,487, Rs.11,486 and Rs.11,486/-  within 14/03/2016, 15/04/2016 and 16/05/2016

                                                                                                        Contd……………P/3

 

 

( 3 )

respectively.  Complainant only paid Rs.11,487 on 14/03/2016 and  rest amount Rs.22,972/- is still due.  Complainant’s husband during his life time made a prayer for replacement of defective meter. O.Ps.  also replaced the defective meter by installing new meter on  14/01/2015 which reveals in exibit-6.  O.Ps. raised bills for the subsequent months from April, 2016 to till date as per meter reading but complainant as a beneficiary of consumer Rati Kanta Jana, did not make payment any amount except of Rs.11,487/- since bill dated January, 2016 to march, 2016 and also subsequent  period bills till to March, 2016and also subsequent period bills till date are due and  complainant herself admitted it in her various statements, evidence etc.

 It appears from the documents that O.Ps. neither disconnected the meter/meters in question of the consumer since deceased and complainant also enjoying electric consumption in S.T.W.  connection for irrigation purpose.  From the documents we find that present complainant also applied for inserting hernames as consumer of the said meter in place of her  husband’s name.

In view of the facts and materials on record we find that complainant as a legal heir and beneficiary of her husband is a defaulter for non-payment of electricity energy bills since long time and such amount of bills is due as a public exchequer under such circumstances O.Ps.  have no negligency or deficiency of service rather complainant is negligent on her part for non-payment  of dues, as such complainant is not entitled to get any order in her favour.

The complaint case fails.  

                      Hence, it is,

                                                 Ordered,

               that the complaint case be and the same is dismissed without cost.

       

           Dictated and Corrected by me

                         Sd/- P.K. Singha                                Sd/- S. Sarkar                        Sd/-B. Pramanik.

                                Member                                           Member                                  President

                                                                                                                                    District Forum

                                                                                                                                 Paschim Medinipur