IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.

CASE No.  CC/11/2018.

 Date of Filing:                    Date of Admission:      Date of Disposal:

05.02.18                               15.02.18                               24.08.23

Complainant: PURNENDU KUMAR MONDAL

S/O Late Jagannath Mondal, Vill. Polladanga,

P.O. Faridpur, P.S. Jalangi,

Murshidabad, Pin 742305.

-Vs-

Opposite Party:The Station Manager,

WBSEDCL Jalangi CCC

P.O. And P.S.Jalangi, Dist. Murshidabad,

Pin 742305.

Agent/Advocate for the Complainant                        : Bidishya Sarkar

Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1             : S.S. Dhar

Present:    Sri Ajay Kumar Das………………………….......President.     

         Sri. Nityananda Roy……………………………….Member.

FINAL ORDER

Sri.ajay kumar das, presiding member.

This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.

            One Purnendu Kumar Mondal (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against Station Manager, WBSEDCL, Jalangi CCC (here in after referred to as the OP) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.

The material facts giving rise to file the complaint are that:-

            The Complainant is an Indian citizen by birth and resides at the above mentioned address.

            The OP is the Government Electric Supplier and having its office at above mentioned address.

            The Complainant runs a shallow pump and it is his small venture of his livelihood, and the Complainant earns his bread and butter. The Complainant filed CPA Case No. 16/2016 on 25.01.16 and the said case was allowed in part on merit on 16.01.17 and the Ld. Forum directed the Complainant to pay Rs. 65,892.77/- by 11 monthly installment.

            The Complainant paid all the installments from 01.03.17 to 01.01.18. The Complainant paid all his due amount.

            After paying his first installment on 01.03.17 of Rs. 6,000/- along with re-connection charge of Rs.100/-, the OP reconnect the electric connection of the Complainant.

            The OP never provided bill to the Complainant and never mentioned meter reading on his yellow card. The OP after disconnection of the electric connection, never installed the meter at the address of the Complainant.

            The Complainant many a times went to the OP and asked for the installation of the meter and for providing electric bill but this OP never paid any heed to the Complainant.

            All of a sudden in very unfortunate manner the Complainant went to the office of the OP and received a bill amounting to Rs. 66,955/- including LPSC charge of Rs. 29,033/-.

            LPSC charge of Rs. 29,033/- by the OP is totally baseless. As the electric connection of the Complainant was totally disconnected for one year i.e. full year of 2016. After paying the first installment and re-connection charge the Complainant’s electric connection was reconnected but the meter was not installed at the address of the Complainant.

            The Complainant went to the office of the OP to rectify the bill and adjust the LPSC charge of Rs. 29,033/-, as no description was provided by the OP in the bill. But the OP didn’t pay any heed to the Complainant and used filthy language which define deficiency of service on the part of the OP.

            The Complainant many a time went to the office of the OP to rectify the bill but the OP didn’t pay any heed, so getting no other alternative but to file this case before the Ld. Forum for the redressal hereunder.

            The Complainant prayed to direct the OP to rectify the bill of the Complainant and deduct the LPSC charge of Rs. 29,033/- from the billing amount and provide a fresh bill after deducting the LPSC charge and to install the meter and to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- for cost and Rs. 10,000/- for harassment charge.

                 The OP filed written version contending inter alia that the petition is not maintainable and the petition is barred by law of limitation. The specific case of the OP is that the Petitioner has a STW connection. The Petitioner filed an application against the OP before the District Consumer Redressal Forum being No. 16/2016. After hearing the Ld. Forum directed the Petitioner to pay the outstanding dues of Rs. 65,892.77/- by 11 installments. The Petitioner has paid sum of Rs. 6,000/- on 01.03.17 along with 100/- for re-connection and disconnection charges. And thereafter the service connection was reconnected.

                 On 05.07.17 the bill amounting to Rs. 66,955/- was generated which contents LPSC of Rs.29,033.72/- and pending six installments of Rs. 35,893/- and current energy bill of Rs. 2,028.91/-. Thereafter the Petitioner has paid Rs. 35,893/- and current energy bill of Rs. 2,028.91/-. Thereafter the Petitioner has paid Rs. 35,893/- as due six installments. In the subsequent bills the OP claimed Rs. 23,402/- as LPSC against six outstanding installments. As a result total LPSC became Rs. 52,436.04/- as the Petitioner was a defaulter so his outstanding energy bills of Rs. 9,732.94/- fall due and the total OSD became 62,169/- on 09.03.18.

                 The LPSC was claimed as the consumer paid the outstanding bills in the year 2017 which was actually generated on and from 12/2011 to 01/2014 as the Petitioner was a defaulter of that period. The LPSC was charged according to WBERC tariff and delay payment surcharge. A meter having No. RLX04743 was installed at the premises of the consumer. But is was missing/not found at the said premises. A letter was issued on 21.03.18 to the Complainant in this regard and the Petitioner received the letter on 21.03.18 without any reply. As the meter was missing so the bills were generated as estimated basis/average basis according to the previous year consumption pattern.

On the basis of the complaint and the written versions the following points are framed for proper  adjudication of the case :

Points for decision

1. Isthe Complainant a consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?

2. Has the OP any deficiency in service, as alleged?

3. Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?]

Decision with Reasons:

Point nos.1,2&3

All the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity of discussion.

The point to be noted is that today is fixed for hearing of argument as special chance but both the parties are found absent on call. The record shows that both the parties were found absent on call on 15.06.23. On 22.03.23 OP took steps but the Complainant was found absent on call. Similarly on 12.12.22 OP took steps but the Complainant was found absent on call. The record shows that the Complainant is reluctant to proceed with the case since long.

            However, we peruse the materials on record. The Complainant prays for directing the OP to rectify the bill of the Complainant and deduct the LPSC charge of Rs. 29,033/- from the billing amount and provide a fresh bill after deducting the LPSC charge and to install the meter and to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- for cost and Rs. 10,000/- for harassment charge.

            The Petitioner has stated in para xvii of his evidence, ‘’that it is not true that a meter having No. RLX04743 was installed at the premises of the consumer. But it was missing/not found at the said premises.’’

                 On this point the relevant portion of written version supported by affidavit is required to be mentioned here. OP has stated that a meter having No. RLX04743 was installed at the premises of the consumer. But is was missing/not found at the said premises. A letter was issued on 21.03.18 to the Complainant in this regard and the Petitioner received the letter on 21.03.18 without any reply. As the meter was missing so the bills were generated as estimated basis/average basis according to the previous year consumption pattern.

                 The point to be noted is that the Complainant is totally silent regarding the letter which was issued on 21.03.18. Such being the position, it may be presumed that the reply if any was given would be in favour of the OP.

                 Moreover, from the materials on record we find that the Complainant is very much reluctant to continue with the instant complaint case since long.

                 In view of the matter discussed above we are of the view that the instant case is liable to be dismissed against the OP.

Reasons for delay

The Case was filed on 05.02.18 and admitted on 15.02.18. This Commission tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act,1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day orders.

In the result, the Consumer case fails.

     Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is    

Ordered

that the complaint Case No. CC/11/2018 be and the same is  dismissed on contest  against the OP.

            Let plain copy of this order  be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand  /by post under proper acknowledgment  as per rules, for information and necessary action.

The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:

confonet.nic.in

Dictated & corrected by me.

President

Member                                                                                   President.