IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC /158/2014.
Date of Filing: 26.11.2014. Date of Final Order: 24.02.2016.
Complainant: Year Ali , S/O Kaifat Ali . Vill.& P.O. Gudhia,
P.S. & Dist. Murshidabad.
-Vs-
Opposite Party: The Station Manager, WBSEDCL, Daulatabad, P.O.&P.S. Daulatabad,
Dist. Murshidabad.
Present: Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya ………………….President.
Sri Samaresh Kumar Mitra ……………………..Member.
FINAL ORDER
Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya, Presiding Member.
The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying proper accounting of electric charges and installation of new transformer and compensation for Rs. 50,000/- and Rs.50,000/- for loss of crops.
The complainant’s case, in brief, is that the OP-WBSEDCL suddenly sent an outstanding bill amounting to Rs.17, 267/- . The transformer from which the service connection has been connected was burnt in the year 2001. Thereafter, no transformer has been installed and due to unavailability of new transformer the complaint could not enjoy the service connection since 2001 to July 2005. On several occasions the complainant requested the O.P to take proper steps so that the complainant use to run the shallow machine but the OP failed to take proper steps. Due to such deficiency in service the cultivation work of the petitioner has been seriously affected. Having no relief the complainant has filed the instant complaint. Hence, the instant complaint case.
The written version filed by the OP-WBSEDCL, in brief, is that the complainant is a habitual defaulter, for non-payment of his outstanding dues of Rs.68, 513/- his service connection was disconnected. The OP has no deficiency in service. The complaint is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the instant written version.
Considering the pleadings of both parties the following points have been raised for the disposal of the case.
Points for decision.
- Whether the case is maintainable in its present form and in law?
- Whether the case is barred by law of limitation?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for?
- To what other relief/reliefs the complainant is entitled to get.
Decision with Reasons.
Point Nos. 1 to 4.
All the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience.
The complainant has prayed for accounting of the bill and for installation of new transformer and compensation for Rs. 50,000/- and Rs.50, 000/- for loss of crops.
The complainant’s case is that the OP-WBSEDCL suddenly sent an outstanding bill amounting to Rs.17, 276/- . The transformer from which the service connection has been connected was burnt in the year 2001. Thereafter, no transformer has been installed and due to unavailability of new transformer the complaint could not enjoy the service connection since 2001 to July 2005. On several occasions the complainant requested the O.P to take proper steps so that the complainant use to run the shallow machine but the OP failed to take proper steps. Due to such deficiency in service the cultivation work of the petitioner has been seriously affected.
On the other hand the OP’s case is that the complainant is a habitual defaulter. Further case is that there are outstanding dues of Rs.68, 513/- including S.P.S.C for the period of 11/2000 to 11/2014 and for non-payment of bill , connection of the complainant was disconnected . The OP has no deficiency in service.
The complainant has filed evidence-on-affidavit, one application to the OP, WBSEDCL praying for exemption of outstanding dues. In this case the complainant has adduced no documentary evidence, nor the bill in question.
The complainant’s case, in brief, is that the bill as claimed by the OP is excessive as transformer was burnt and they could not enjoy the service connection and for that the OP was not entitled to get any payment of the energy charges. But there is no cogent evidence to establish the same.
On the other hand, there is allegation of non-payment of huge bill for Rs.68, 513/-
This particular case is not relating to the case of illegal hooking. For absence of cogent evidence as to the excessive bill, the complainant is to pay the entire bill amount as claimed by the OP-WBSEDCL.
Considering the said bill relating to the agricultural purposes the complainant is directed to pay the same by some installments.
From the above discussions, we find that all the points are disposed of in favour of the complainant in part and the complainant is to pay Rs.68,513/- by 12 monthly installments, @ Rs.6000/- per month for 11 monthly installments and the last installment is of Rs.2,513/- .
Hence,
Ordered
that the Consumer Complaint No. 158/2014 be and the same is hereby allowed on contest but in part.
The complainant is directed to pay the entire bill of Rs.68,513/- by 12 monthly installments, @Rs.6000/- per month for 11 monthly installments and the last installment is of Rs.2,513/-.
The first installment is to be paid by the complainant as early as possible and the remaining installments are to be paid within the fortnight of each month. The current bills are to be paid by the complainant as usual.
After getting the first installment, the OP is directed to restore the connection of the complainant in his STW-Connection. In default of any installment, the OP is at liberty to disconnect the service line of the complaint.
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.
