West Bengal

Dakshin Dinajpur

CC/10/33

Sri Jogesh Chandra Barman - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Divisional Manager - Opp.Party(s)

Debraj Chakraborty

24 Mar 2011

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum

Dakshin Dinajpur, W. Bengal

(Old Sub-Jail Municipal Market Complex, 2^nd Floor, Balurghat Dakshin Dinajpur Pin - 733101)

Telefax: (03522)-270013

Present

Sri B. Niyogi - President

Sri S. K. Ghosh - Member

Miss. Swapna Saha - Member

Consumer Complaint No. 33/2010

Sri Jogesh Chandra Barman,

S/o Lt. Matilal Barman,

Vill.: Dolla,

P.S.: Balurghat,

Dist. Dakshin Dinajpur.……………………………Complainant

V-E-R-S-U-S

The Divisional Manager.

Dakshin Dinajpur ‘D’ Division; W. B. S. E. D. C. Ltd.

P.O. & P.S.: Balurghat.

Dakshin Dinajpur. …………………Opposite Party

For complainant ……………… - Sri Debraj Chakraborty, Ld. Adv.

For OP …………………… - Sri Sudip Chatterjee, Ld. Adv.

Date of Filing : 06.07.2010

Date of Disposal : 24.03.2011

Order No. 17

Dt. 24.03.2011

This day was fixed for further hearing of the case.

The Ld. Counsel for the OP is present. None appears for the complainant despite repeated calls. In fact, the complainant has remained absent without having taken any steps this day.

Hd. the Ld. Counsel for the OP who pressed for the dismissal of the complaint in view of absence of the complainant.

Perused the case record.

The complainant brought the complaint u/s 12 CP Act on 6.7.2010 virtually praying for regeneration of an electricity bill and compensation.

It appears from the case record that after the hearing of the case had commenced on 14.12.10, further hearing was adjourned on prayer made on behalf of the OP on ground of feasibility of an amicable settlement. The further hearing of the case could not be resumed yet despite fixation of a good number of dates one after another.

In fact, on 2.2.11 the complainant filed a petition seeking adjournment alleging that in view of amicable settlement the OP got the impugned bill, revised and also gave facility for making payment of the dues in installments. Thereafter further hearing of the case could not been taken up either on prayer made on behalf of the complainant or in view of absence of the complainant. In fact, the complainant has remained absent without steps not only on this day but on the previous date too.

From a consideration of the circumstances, it seems that the complainant is not eager to proceed with this case in view of an amicable settlement. No petition seeking an order on amicable settlement or for withdrawal of the complaint has, however, been filed.

Having kept in view the circumstances, in particular, complainant’s remaining absent without steps this day which is an adjourned date for further hearing, we deem it proper to dismiss the complaint in terms of Sec. 13 (2) (c) of the CP Act.

The date of service of notice upon the OP is not apparent from the case record. However, the OP appeared in the case first on 19.8.10 which was initially fixed for S/R and Appearance. Instant proceeding is thus getting disposed of about 7 (seven) months after the appearance of the OP in the case. This is, as it appears from the case record, mainly in view of a good number of adjournments sought for either from the OP for presenting written version or from the side of the complainant for further hearing on one ground or the other.

Under such circumstances, it is.

O R D E R E D

That the complaint u/s 12 CP Act brought by the complainant Sri Jogesh Chandra Barman on 06. 07. 2010 be dismissed in terms of Sec. 13 (2) (c) CP Act.

There will, however, be no ordered as to cost.

Let plain copies of this order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost.

Dictated & corrected

(B. Niyogi)

President

We concur

(Swapna Saha)

Member

(S.K. Ghosh)

Member

-x-