The instant case was instituted on the basis of an application filed under Section 12 of the Consumer protection act, 1986 filed by the complainant which was registered as Consumer Case No. 02/17 in this Forum.

The fact of the case is that the complainant/petitioner Putul Barman is a consumer of W.B.S.E.D.C.L being service consumer I.D.No.401056551 since long. The electric connection is a commercial one and being used for his shallow machine to supply the water to his own land. The petitioner paid the electric bill regularly. The petitioner paid the bill Rs.126/-, Rs.157/- and Rs.1046 in the year 2015 and she paid Rs.126.36 reading dt.28.12.2015, Bill dated 10.01.16 for the month of Feb.2016. But there is no outstanding bill. The petitioner also paid the bill Rs.157.19 for the month of March 2016. There was no outstanding bill. The O.P sent the bill in the month of May, 2016 of Rs.1046.72 and the petitioner paid the bill but the O.P demand outstanding amount of Rs.287.67 which is illegal, void and without jurisdiction. The O.P sent the bill in the month of August of Rs.285.56 and outstanding for July 2016 is 0.08 and the petitioner paid the said bill. The O.P sent the bill in the month of September, 2016 of Rs.260.45 and the petitioner paid the said bill. There is no outstanding bill. The O.P send the bill in the month of October,2016 of Rs.155.52 and the petitioner paid the said bill. There is no outstanding bill. The O.P send the bill in the month of December 2016 of Rs.69.30 and outstanding bill amount of Rs.30, 862.54.The petitioner stated that the outstanding amount is false, illegal fabricated and she inform the Station Manager, W.B.S.E.D.C.L on 02.01.2017 stating that the bill is illegal and her meter is defective but O.Ps did not take any action of the said application rather the O.P.No.2 is ignored her application. Finding no other alternative the petitioner filed this case before this Forum praying for an order that the outstanding bill of Rs.30862.54 is false fabricated and illegal and not to disconnect her electric line.

The petition has been contested by the OP by filling the written version denying all the material allegations as leveled against the OP contending inter alia that the complainant has no cause of action to file this case. The present case is not maintainable in law and facts. She has no locus standi to file this case.

The definite defence case is that the Service Consumer I.D.No.401056551stands in the name of Putli Barman not in the name of Putul Barman. The further defence case is that the bill for the month of November, 2016 reading period 18.09.16 to 13.10.16 the total unit consumption as per normal meter reading is 5563+761+962=7286 units. Hence the amount due is Rs.30,467/- on 31.10.16 and after due date the consumer did not pay the said amount, as such the consumer was defaulter in payment of that bill for that amount. The further defence case is that on the basis of an application the O.P. split up the amount in three installments dated 25.01.17, 27.02.17 and 27.03.17. Bill for the month of December 2016 reading period 10.12.17 to 19.01.17a minimum bill was charged on due date 30.01.17 amounting to Rs.70/-. The consumer paid the amount of Rs.70/- on 25.01.17. As the consumer paid Rs.70/- on 25.01.17 as such there was no reflection of outstanding amount. The further defence case is that the complainant did not pay the previous bill as per installments. So, considering the facts and circumstances the instant case is dismissed.

During trial the complainant Putul Barman herself was examined as P.W.1 and she was cross examined. One Budha Barman was examined as P.W.2 and he was cross examined. On behalf of O.P one Mr. Samir Das was examined and cross examined as O.P.W.1. No other witness was examined. During trial both parties filed documents.

Now the point for determination whether the complainant/petitioner is entitled to get any relief as prayed for.

                              Decision with reasons.

From the cross examination of P.W.2 it is found that the connection in question is commercial line and he took a pump machine for cultivating his own land measuring 7/8 bighas. From his cross examination it is further revealed that about 15/16 bighas of land was cultivated by the pump. From his cross examination it is also revealed  his wife has 2 and ½ bighas of land and the land of his wife is irrigated with the help of this pump. From his cross examination it is found that the highest bill was Rs.31,000/- and there was no disconnection of electricity of the pump. From his cross examination it is found that in the season time pump is operated for 4 hours to 5 hours and he was also admitted that after 31.10.16 he has consumed electricity but no payment was made. As and when from the cross examination of P.W.2 it is found that the pump is in operation and in the season time 4/5 hours pump was operated so definitely there was heavy consumption of power for which the number of unit is consumed. So, the allegation that the bill for the previous month was less then Rs.200/- is quite absurd. Moreover, from his cross examination it is found that electricity was not disconnected. So, considering the facts and circumstances it cannot be said that the bill as demand by Electricity Board is excessive and without any basis. Moreover, it is very peculiar to note that after 31.10.16 he has consuming electricity but no payment was made to this effect. It is not understood why the Electricity Department did not disconnect the electricity due to nonpayment of bill. On perusal of the record it is found that on 17.01.17 this Forum passed an interim order for payment of 50% of Rs.30,883/-, but nowhere in the record it is found that whether the complainant has complied the order by depositing  50% of the amount. Though in cross examination he has stated that after 31.10.16 no payment was made. So the complainant is a worst defaulter in payment of bill for consumption of electricity. Consumer has also the liability to pay the bill for consumption of electricity. But he has not done  this. So, considering the facts and circumstances the instant case is liable to be dismissed. It is not understood why the department of electricity did not disconnect the connection. Moreover, from the order sheet nowhere it is found that the interim order has been extended till disposal of the case though the interim order was valid up to 30.01.17.

C.F. paid is correct.

Hence, it is

                                          O r d e r e d  

That the instant case being No.C.C.02/2017 be and the same is dismissed on contest with cost of Rs.1000/-.

The O.P/W.B.S.E.D.C.L may proceed for recovery of the amount as per provision of law.

Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the Station Manager/Assistant Engineer, W.B.S.E.D.C.L, Birnagar C.C.C., P.O & P.S. Raiganj, Dist. Uttar Dinajpur.

Let a copy of this order be also supplied to the petitioner free of cost.