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

CASE No.  CC/168/2014.

 Date of Filing: 03.12.2014.                                                                      Date of Final Order:07.10.2015.

Complainant:              Md. Abu Taher @ Abu Taher Sk. S/O AzizurRahaman, Vill. Rajkhanda,

                                    P.O. Mahurul-Anantapur, P.S. Nabagram, Dist. Murshidabad. Pin-742136.

-Vs-

Opposite Party:           The Station Manager, Nabagram Customer Care Centre, WBSEDCL,

                                     P.O.&P.S. Nabagram, Dist. Murshidabad. Pin 742184.

   Present:            Hon’ble Member,  Samaresh Kumar Mitra.

                                Hon’ble Member,  Pranati Ali.

FINAL ORDER

Samaresh KumarMitra,Member.  

This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of C.P.Act, 1986 praying for reconnection of his electric line to the STW connection for running the submersible pump and to direct the Opposite Party to adjust the outstanding amount as has already been paid.

The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he is a bona-fide consumer under the Opposite Party having electric connection in hissubmersible pump being Consumer I.D. No. 313093675, Consumer No. S 901213 and Service connection No. STW-2889. Due to his financial crunch he could pay some electic bills and he did not run the pump in that period. But the Opposite Party sent an electric bill demanding outstanding amount of Rs.63, 103.04 as per WBERC’s order dt. 30.12.2011 and after getting the same the complainant paid the said amount including the interest imposed on him in two separate money receipts dt. 06.11.2013 of Rs.330/- as surcharge amount and Rs.68, 744/- as bill amount from 11/2000 to 02/2013. After payment the complainant started running the pump as usual. But without any notice the OP disconnected the service line of his STW connection on 24.11.2014. The OP demanded the said outstanding amount which has already been paid by him. The complainant, by filing a petition dt.28.11.2014, prays for reconnection of the service line but the OP refused to do so. Hence, the instant complaint case.

The written version filed by the Opposite Party, in brief, is that the petitioner has a STW connection and a sum of Rs.48, 744/- remained due for the period of 11/2000 to 02/2013 and a sum of Rs.330/- for the period of 10/2000. On 06.11.2013 the complainant paid the amount by two receipts Nos. 45483 & 45484 respectively. The next bill sent to the complainant contained the LPSC charge for the sum of Rs.64, 094/- for delayed payment for the period of 10/2000 to 02/2013. The complainant did not pay the amount. As a result his electric line was disconnected on 24.11.2014. The present petition of the complainant is liable to be rejected.

  The complainant filed affidavit-in-chief on 23.9.2015 in which he stated that OP sent a bill  demanding Rs.53,103.00 as outstanding bill and he paid the same including surcharge amounting to Rs.69,074.00 from 11-2000 to 2-2013 as unpaid bill. Thereafter the OP disconnected the electric line on 24.11.2014 without any notice but he prayed to reconnect his connection on 28.11.2014 but OP refused the same. He being a farmer cultivates his land to earn his livelihood and prayed for order  in the prayer portion of the complaint.

The argument as advanced by the parties/agents heard in full.

                From the discussion herein above, we find the following Issues/Points for consideration.

ISSUES/POINTS   FOR   CONSIDERATION

1. Whether the Complainant ‘Md. Abu Taher @ Abu Taher Sk.’is a ‘Consumer’ of the Opposite Party?
2. Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
3. Whether the O.Ps carried on unfair trade practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards the Complainant?
4. Whether the complainant proved his case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to him?

DECISION WITH REASONS

   In the light of discussions here in above we find that the issues/points should be decided based on the above perspectives.

(1).Whether the Complainant ‘Md. Abu Taher @ Abu TaherSk’ is a ‘Consumer’ of the opposite party?

     From the materials on record it is transparent that the Complainant is a “Consumer” as provided by the spirit of section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. As the complainant being the consumer of the OP is enjoying power for cultivating his land to earn his livelihood and it is admitted by the OP Company being the service provider.

     (2).Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?

                Both the complainant and opposite party are residents/carrying on business within the district of Murshidabad. The complaint valued within Rs.20,00,000/- limit of this Forum. So, this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case.         

    (3).Whether the opposite party carried on Unfair Trade Practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards the Complainant?

              The complainant being a consumer of the OP is enjoying power for cultivating his land being service connection No.STW-2889 from the OP Company and due to some financial crunch the Complainant could not meet the electric bills regularly and in the meantime the OP sent an outstanding electric bill amounting to Rs.63,103.00 as per order of WBERC’s order dated 30.12.2011 and after getting the bill he paid bills amounting to Rs.69,074.00 in the two receipts on 6.11.2013. That on 24.11.2014 the OP disconnected the electric connection of the complainant without notice to the consumer due to nonpayment of LPSC amounting to Rs.65975.00. the complainant by a letter dated 28.11.2014 informed his grievances before the OP Company but the OP took no measure at the utterances of the complainant so getting no alternative he filed the instant complaint before this Forum for redressal.

             The OP in its written version stated that complainant/petitioner has a STW connection and a sum of Rs.48744.00 remained due for the period of11-2000 to 02-2013 and sum of Rs.330.00 for the period of 10-2000. The complainant on 06.11.2013 paid the amount by receipt Nos. 45483 and 45484. The next bill sent to the complainant contained the LPSC charge for the sum of Rs.64094 for delayed payment for the period of 10-2000 to 02-2013 and the complainant did not pay the amount so the electric connection complainant was disconnected on 24.11.2014 and the LPSC was charged as per tariff order of the WBERC.

              It appears from the bill&bill payment receipts that the complainant paid Rs.68,744.00 as bill amount for the period11-2000 to 02-2013. On the same date he also paid a sum of Rs.330.00 for the billing period 10-2000 to 10-2000. The OP disconnected the power connection of the complainant on 24-11-2014 on the pretext that a sum of RS. 64094.00 as LPSC were due for delayed payment for the period of 10-2000 to 02-2013. The record & document speaks that this OP failed to send bill regularly for the period from10-2000 to 06-11-2013 and on the same time the complainant did not pay bills regularly.  A huge amount of bill was due for the period and the complainant fall under the liability of LPSC. It is surprising that why the OP did not send bill regularly to this complainant and if the bill was due for a prolonged period then, why this OP did not disconnect the power connection of the complainant. Is it not a fact that this OP willfully did not send bill regularly just to collect the LPSC from the complainant? The complainant deposited a huge amount of bill at a time on 06.11.2013 amounting to Rs.69,044.00. So by paying bills the complainant showed his good gesture as a consumer. Then on 24.11.2014 the OP disconnected the power connection of the complainant without notice due to nonpayment of LPSC amounting to Rs.65975.00. This shows that the OP whimsically acted to collect money from its consumer. He forgot that the complainant is not an industrialist but a poor farmer who used to earn his livelihood by cultivating land by taking power for irrigation. This OP being the largest electric supply Company throughout the state engaged for the welfare of the common people. So, this complainant has great aspiration of co-operation from this OP. It is unwiseful to frustrate the myth that the OP Company used to extend co-operation for the poor farmers in rural areas. It is expected to take the matter of the complainant sympathetically by this OP.

From the above discussion, we are in a considered opinion to direct the OP to collect LPSC from this complainant amounting to Rs.10000.00 instead of Rs.65975.00 and to collect bills regularly at per the actual meter reading so that the complainant may not suffer to bear the burden of paying LPSC. The complainant should pay bills regularly so that he can avoid all sorts of dispute.

The inaction/negligence/ discrepancies of the O.P. Company is not proved for which the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation  as prayed for.

4). Whether the complainant proved his case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to him?

                    The discussion made herein before, we have no hesitation to come in a conclusion that the Complainant should get some relief as he proved his case in part and the Opposite Party is not liable to pay any compensation.

ORDER

                Hence it is ordered that the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest against the Opposite party in part.

                 The OP is directed to reconnect the power connection of the complainant within 15 days, subject to deposit of LPSC of Rs.10000.00 instead of Rs.65975.00 by the complainant. OP is further directed to prepare bills regularly so that accumulation may not take place. The complainant is directed to deposit Rs.10000.00 as LPSC within 30 days from this date of order and pay bills regularly to avoid disconnection. No other reliefs are awarded to this complainant.

                At the event of failure to comply with the order the Opposite Party shall pay cost @ Rs.50/- for each day’s delay, if caused, on expiry of the aforesaid 45 days by depositing the accrued amount, if any,  in the fund of  “ Consumer Legal Aid Account”.

                Let a plain copy of this order be made available and be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties on contest in person, Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand under proper acknowledgment / be sent forthwith under ordinary post  to the concerned parties as per rules, for information and necessary action.

Dictated and Corrected by me.

      Member,                                                   President –in-Charge,

   District Consumer Disputes                                  District Consumer Disputes                                     Redressal Forum, Murshidabad.                         Redressal Forum, Murshidabad.