West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/99/2014

Tapan Kumar Routh. - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

27 Feb 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

 Complaint case No.99/2014                                                                                                Date of disposal: 27/02/2015                               

          BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT :  Mr. Sujit Kumar Das.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mrs. Debi Sengupta.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mr. Kapot Chattopadhyay.

  

 For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff : Mr. S. Das, Advocate.

 For the Defendant/O.P.S.                       : Mr. S.K. Bhattacharjee, Advocate.                                   

          

 Sri Tapan Kumar Routh, S/o Late Purna Ch. Routh, Vill. Patgeria, P.O. Radhakirhna, P.S. Pingla,

 Dist- Paschim Medinipur…………..Complainant

                                                           Vs.

1)The Station Manager, W.B.S.E.D.C.L., Pingla G.R. Electric Supply, P.O. & P.S. Pingla, Dist- Paschim Medinipur.

2)The Divisional Manager, Kharagpur (O & M) Division W.B.S.E.D.CL., Inda, Sakti Bhavan, P.O. Kharagpur, Dist- Paschim Medinipur..……………Ops.

         The case of the complainant Tapan Kumar Routh, in short, is that he is a permanent consumer having connection No.T.A.4891, Consumer No.S010939 under the Ops for his mini deep well.  But he alleged that bill dated 15/09/2012 prepared with MVCA charges without due notification which the OP refused to correct despite repeated request even upon a resolution dated 20/01/2014, in presence of Gram Panchayet and BDO, was held where it was settled to correct the bill as per the company norms. In this connection, the disputed bill with record dated 25/07/2014, resolution dated 20/01/2014, a letter of request  dated 26/07/2014 is produced by the complainant.

         The Op contested the case by filling written objection challenging that the case is not maintainable for want of cause of action.  The complainant is a defaulter, he is to pay the bill with installments alongwith the current bill like other consumers in accordance with the guideline formulated in the resolution dated 20/01/2014.

 

          Upon the case of both parties the following issues are framed.

Issues:

1)Whether the case is maintainable in its present from?

2)Whether the complainant has any cause of action for presentation of this petition of complaint?

                                                                                                                                                          Contd………………..P/2

                                                                                    -  ( 2 ) –

 

3)Whether the case is barred by law?

4)Whether the complainant is entitled for getting relief as prayed for.?

         

Decision with reasons

Issue Nos.1 to 3:

              All the issues are taken up together for discussion as those are interlinked each other for the purpose of arriving at a correct decision in the dispute.

              Ld. Advocate for the complainant made his argument that the complainant is a regular consumer and paying electricity bills in times for each and every month.  But suddenly, the OP claimed huge amount in the bill dated 10/09/2012 for the period from 30/07/2012 to 30/08/2012.  There was a resolution for proper settlement of the disputed bill and also the authority of the OP gave an instruction to the Divisional Manager, Kharagpur W.B.S.E.D.C.L for immediate action for settlement of the disputed bill as per norms of the Company.  Even thereafter the OP continues to demand the disputed amount against the complainant.  Thus, the prayer made by the complainant should be allowed.

              In reply, the OP made argument through their Ld. Advocate that they have already taken steps in compliance with the resolution dated 20/01/2014 on settled mode of payment but the same is not finalized due to non-cooperation of the complainant. Apart from that, a computerized statement is produced on behalf of the OP in order to claim that the bill which has been prepared correctly on the basis of month wise unit consumption during the years of 2012, 2013, & 2014.  Despite everything, since the matter is under consideration, there is no deficiency of service as alleged by the complainant against the OP/ W.B.S.E.D.C.L.  The fact of computerized statement supporting the disputed bill is not denied by the complainant.  So, there is no cause of action for presentation of this case.  As, a consequence thereof, the case should not lie for want of cause of action.  

    We have carefully considered the argument in respect of the case together with the documentary evidence on record.  It appears that the dispute was locally settled by virtue of an agreed modality under resolution dated 20/01/2014 in presence of Pingla BDO, Panchayet Samity and permanent consumers.  It was held there that the OP shall take action for effective conclusion of the disputed bill as raised by the complainant subject to payment of 50% thereof and,  necessary application to be furnished before the OP/W.B.S.E.D.C.L. for final solution.

          Upon consideration of the case, it is evident before us that the bill dispute was considered in a joint city in presence of B.D.O, Gram Panchayet on 20/01/2014 and a resolution was adopted for the purpose of regularization of the disputed bill.  The mode of regularization

                                                                                                                                                                    Contd……………P/3

 

                                                                                   - ( 3 ) -

 

was agreed to by the complainant.  If that be so, we find sufficient ground to hold and decide that the complainant has filed this case at a premature stage without following the modality as adopted in the said resolution and the direction given by Sri A Maity, Regional Manager, Paschim Medinipur region and as such the case of complainant is at a premature stage having no cause of action for raising allegation of deficiency in service against the OP.  As a result, the case is not maintainable in its present form and the same should be dismissed with a direction to the OP for disposal of the grievance within 30 dates from the date of taking steps of the complainant in terms of the resolution dated 20/01/2014 and the letter of direction given by Sri A Maity Regional Manager under memo No.RM/PMRO/T/3/1055 dated 5/08/2014.

               In view of the above all the issues are disposed of accordingly.

                  Hence,

                               It is Ordered,    

                                                    that the case be and the same is dismissed  on contest  without cost. Op shall dispose of the grievance on the disputed bill dated 15/09/2012 within 30 days from the date of taking steps by the complainant in terms of the resolution dated 20/01/2014 and in view of Memo No.RM/PMRO/T/3/1055 dated 5/08/2014 issued by Regional Manager, Medinipur region.

Dictated & Corrected by me

              

         President                          Member                           Member                                President

                                                                                                                                District Forum

                                                                                                                           Paschim Medinipur.