West Bengal

Birbhum

CC/127/2015

Ajit Mondal,S/O Lt Amulya Ratan Mondal, - Complainant(s)

Versus

the Station Manager, WBSEDCL - Opp.Party(s)

Rajib Majumdar

10 Mar 2017

ORDER

This is a complaint filed by Ajit Mondal of Harua, Sainthia, Birbhum against the O.P WBSEDCL, Ahmadpur Customer Care Centre. The complaint, in short, is that Ajit Mondal applied for electric service connection to his submersible pump(SMP) in his agricultural land. The O.P made enquiry and after due satisfaction he issued quotation of Rs. 6693/-. Complainant deposited the quotational amount. Inspite of receiving quotational amount the O.P did not effect electric service connection within stipulated time.

The O.P Station Manager, WBSEDCL Customer Care Centre, Ahamadpur appeared and contested the case. He stated in written version that the complainant applied for temporary electric service connection to SMP in his agricultural land. The service connection was effected in due time. Later the complainant applied for permanent service connection and deposited the quotational amount. At the time of processing service connection it was found that there was an outstanding bill of Rs. 15738/- for March 2012 and April 2012 in the name of complainant. Until and unless the complainant pay his outstanding bills permanent connection will not be effected.

Both parties file certain documents. Perused the documents and heard Ld. Lawyers of both sides the following points are to be considered for discussion.

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps or not?
2. Is complainant entitled to relief as prayed for?

DECISION WITH REASONS

Admittedly the complainant deposited quotational amount for electric service connection to SMP in his agricultural land. But the O.P raised the point that there is outstanding bills in the name of the complainant for his temporary electric connection to the same SMP. And for that reason the O.P did not effect the electric service connection.

The complainant raised objection in his examination in chief on affidavit and in cross examination. He denied the allegation of outstanding bills in his name because he never applied for temporary service connection to his SMP. The O.P did not challenge it by way of evidence/witness. The O.P filed a meter reading card in the name of Ajit Mondal, Herua. The meter reading card shows the service connection No. as T/1281, date of connection 05.02.2012. There is no mentioned of plot No. or mouza number. The card also shows that on the date of installation of meter i.e. on 05.02.2012, reading was 3263 units, in place of units consumed the date of connection has been written as 05.02.2012.

In support of complainants argument he stated that the meter reading was 7128 units on the date of disconnection 01.06.2012. That means during four months the complainant consumed 3965 units. It is abnormal. The meter reading card shows different units comparing with meter bill dated 07.06.2012. The meter bill in the name of Ajit Mondal shows that present reading 7239 units and units consumed 7128 units. Why the present reading and units consumed differs from each other.

There is signature in the name of Ajit Mondal on the meter reading card filed by the O.P. The signature is over written. The complainant fervently denied that the signature is not of him. It was manufactured for the interest of the case. The O.P did not challenge either by expert opinion or by giving evidence of witness. Apparently the signature of meter reading card is not same with the signature on the plaint of the complainant.

The complainant sent a legal notice to the O.P asking for effecting service connection and for cancellation of fictitious billing amount. The O.P has filed a copy of the letter to the complainant in response to the advocate’s letter. The letter shows that it was written to Advocate for Ajit Mondal, where there is mentioned the name of ‘Ajit Mondal S/o Lt. Amulya Ratan Mondal of Ekut’. Later the word Ekut was penned through and in place of Ekut Herua is written by them. Ekut is 9/10 k.m. away from Herua. Ld. Advocate for the complainant argued that this Ajit Mondal is not his client.

The O.P filed certain list of name of the outstanding bills without any seal and signature by the authority.

The complainant has filed a copy of computer generated electric bill which has been sent by the O.P to the complainant on 06.05.2015 stating outstanding amount after adjustment of Rs. 17,000/-. The question is – why the bill had been sent to the complainant after three years.

The question may arise why the O.P did not effect electric service connection to the SMP of the complainant after receiving the quotational money on 10.02.2012. On what basis of prayer the O.P gave temporary service connection to the complainant within 05.02.2012. There is no evidence. The O.P claimed that the complainant deposited Rs. 17000/- as security deposited for temporary connection. The complainant denied it on affidavit. The O.P did not file iota of evidence in support of his claim.

From the above discussion the Forum finds that the O.P has deficiency in service. The complainant is entitled to get electric service connection. The O.P is directed to effect the same to the complainant’s SMP in his agricultural land.

​

 

Proper fees have been paid.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

                                                that C.F case No. 127/2015 be and the same is allowed in part against the O.P.

The O.P is directed to effect the electric service connection to the complainant’s SMP in his agricultural land within one month from the date of this order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to execute the order as per law and procedure.

            Copy of this order be supplied to the parties each free of cost.