: J U D G M E N T :
The brief fact of the case is that Urmila Bala Biswas, the aunt of the complainant had an electric connection being J D No. 333051940. The bill has been sent to urmila Bala Biswas under care of Dipankar Biswas, the complainant in the instant case. The complainant in several occasion visited the office of OP / electricity Dept. for inserting his name in place of aunt Urmila Bala Biswas. But no reasonable reply has come from the side of OP. For this reason the complainant has knocked at the door of the Forum and prays for relief mentioned in his complaint.
The OP contested the case by filling written version stating inter alia that the complainant Dipankar Biswas is not a consumer of OP / electricity Dept. There is a connection in the name of Urmibala Biswas. There is no outstanding dues pending against her till date. One Pradyut Biswas has raised objection against the said connection. Furthermore, that the OP has also informed to the complainant regarding change of name. but no reply or any communication has been made from the end of the complainant. So the petition is liable to be rejected.
Now this Forum is to consider the followings:-
- Whether the complainant is to be treated as consumer or not as per
Consumer Protection Act 1986.
- Whether there is any gross negligence or deficiency in service on the
part of ops or not,
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for.
DECISION WITH REASONS
For the purpose of brevity and convenience all the points are taken up together for discussion.
We have perused all documents including complaint, written version etc. At first we have perused the electric bill dtd. 14.11.14. On careful perusal of the said bill, it is clear that the bill was issued in the name of Urmila Bala Biswas under care of the complainant viz., Dipankar Biswas, in the instant case. From hearing and argument from both sides it is admitted position that before demise of Urmila Bala Biswas the complainant in the instant case and one of the co-sharer of the property resided with her since long period of time. So as a beneficiary he is treated to be a consumer as per Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as the complainant enjoyed the said electricity along with his aunt. It is admitted that complainant is one of the co-sharear of the property. It is also revealed from the memo No. AE/KTS/E-29/1834 dtd. 01.12.14 that the OP informed the complainant to supply / produce some documents, otherwise, the electric connection will be disconnected, but we hold that the complainant has failed to understand the proper procedure regarding inserting his name. It should be the duty of the OP to cooperate with him and also to state the procedure by easy way so that the complainant would be able to understand his requirement to be submitted in the office of the OP. On that particular point there is a deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Furthermore, that there is no dues on the part of the complainant. So when the complainant is so interested to pay the bill amount in regular way in such consequences it should be the duty of the OP to help him. The complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for against the OP. The case succeeds. All the points are decided on the basis of above observation.
Hence,
Ordered,
That the CC/2014/173 be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP without cost.
That the OP is hereby directed to take proper steps or to make proper arrangement within 30 days from the date of order positively so that the complainant shall be able to insert his name in place of Urmila Bala Biswas regarding electric connection. The OP is further directed not to disconnect the electric line until the effecting connection in the name of Dipankar Biswas (complainant in the instant case).
Let the copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.
