By : SMT BANDANA ROY, PRESIDENT
The case of the complainant in short is that he is a permanent residence of this jurisdiction and a bonafide consumer of the OP Electricity Board namely Khejuri CCC under Bhupatinagar W.B. He has electric connection No. 201294223, meter No. B2589324 from 29.10.14. It is the case of the complainant that he paid the first bill on 01.06.15 for 351 unit and 2nd bill for 605 unit on 0-1.09.15 and the OP admit such payment against Con ID no. 201540705 at Madhakhali CCC. Unfortunately the first bill for Rs. 2244/- for 351 unit has been lost from the custody of the complainant which was paid online. The OP accepted the 2nd bill for the amount of Rs. 1963/- on 10.09.15. the Op accepted the 2nd bill of Rs. 1963/- on 10.09.15 against wrong meter No. TA 241250 Con. ID. No. 201540705. But ignoring the said payment the op demanded Rs. 79s58.00 without adjusting the earlier payment. The complainant wrote the Regional Office for rectifying the above amount but the OP did not adjust the earlier payment.
Under such circumstances the complainant has filed this case for the reliefs as prayed in the petition of complaint.
The OP contests the case by filing written version contending that the case is not maintainable in its present form and prayer, and that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try such case of dispute in bill meter. The OP admits that the petitioner applied for a new connection in his domestic premises at Khejri CCC on 08.10.14 through online. He deposited the total quotation amount on 09.10.14 against Con Id No 201294223. The said connection was effected on 2910.14 from Khejuri CCC vide Meter No. B2589324. An electric bill in the name of Balai Das of village and PO Udbadal, vide Con ID No. 201540705 meter No. TA 241250 was generated and received by Sri Balai Das of village and PO Bhupatinagar and he stated that he paid bills two times by mistake. After that when the consumer Sri Balai Das received his actual bill against consumer ID No. 201294223 meter No. B2589324 of village and Post Bhupatinagar he applied to RGRO for adjustment of his payment against wrong consumer ID ie. 201540705. As per draft order of the RGRO on 23.08.16 the amount paid by Sri Balai Das con ID No. 201294223,Meter No. B2589324 of village and PO Bhupatinagar can be adjusted against his actual Con ID 201294223 was “subject to producing the original money receipts on or before final hearing”. On the date of final hearing on 09.09.16 Sri Balai Das was absent and the RGRO passed an order “the billed amount as was deposited the wrong Con ID No. will be refunded/adjusted to the complainant subject to producing original money receipts”. Till date the complainant could not submit the original money receipt and his service connection was disconnected on 28.11.16 due to nonpayment of outstanding dues.
In the above premises, the OPs pray for dismissal of the complaint petition with cost.
The only point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief or reliefs as prayed for.
Decision with Reasons
We have perused the written complaint, the written version of the OP and the documents filed by both the parties very carefully. There is no dispute that the complainant has paid the first bill online. The complainant in para 4 of his written complaint has stated that on 01.06.15 the bill was paid for 351 unit and accordingly second bill unit 605 ( 605 – 351 unit ) = 254 was paid on 01.09.15 and the OP admitted the payment against Con ID No. 201540706 meter no. TA 241250 but in para 5 the complainant has stated that the second bill of Rs. 1963/- was paid on 10.9.15 against wrong meter no. TA 241250 Con ID No. 201540705. It appears that the complainant’s own statement in para 4 and para 5 is self-contradictory and OPs have repeatedly stated that the complainant has not paid the second bill and at the time of hearing final order was passed directing the complainant to produce the original money receipts of the OPs but till now the complainant could not produce the same.
Ld lawyer for the complainant argued that the complainant’s case is that he lost the second bill so he could not show the money receipt to the OPs. Admittedly the complainant lost the bill and there is no evidence before this forum that complainant paid the second bill .So, the complainant is liable for payment of the second bill. We are of the view that no indulgence could be given to the complainant who has admittedly could not produce the money receipt due to alleged loss. We are also of the view that the OPs should give the complainant a chance to pay Rs. 7,938.00 in three equal instilments which is payable within three successive months. After the first instalment is paid the OP will restore the electric service connection to the premises of the complainant.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
That the complainant case No. 291/2016 be and the same is allowed in on contest on certain terms and conditions.
The Complainant is directed to pay Rs. 7,958.00 in three equal monthly installments, first of which within seven days from this date of order. The OPs are directed to accept Rs. 7,958/- in three EMIs and to effect the service connection immediately after received payment of the first installment by the complainant.
The complainant is directed not to default any further in payment or in compliance of this order.
If, in spite of payment of the first installment, the OP fails to effect the service connection, the OPs will be liable to pay Rs. 100/- per diem which would be payable to the Consumer Welfare Fund.
Let copy of the judgment be supplied to all the parties free of costs.
