DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS,

AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 0144

      C.C. CASE NO. 30 OF 2017

DATE OF FILING: 07/03/2017  DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT: 13/06/2018

Present                 :   President       :  Ananta Kumar Kapri

                                 Member(s)    :  Subrata Sarker  & Jhunu Prasad                             

COMPLAINANT      :  Sukdeb Mondal, S/o- Biswanath Mondal, Vill + P.O- Sarisha, P.S- Diamond Harbour, Dist- South 24 Parganas

• VERSUS    -

O.P/O.Ps                    :  1) Div Manager, West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd., Vill- Kalinagar, P.O + P.S- Diamond Harbour, Dist- South 24 Parganas

                                         2)  Station Manager, West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd., Vill+ P.O- Sarisha (near Kalinagar More) P.S- Diamond Harbour, Dist- South 24 Parganas

_____________________________________________________________________________________

J U D G M E N T

Sri Ananta Kumar Kapri, President

The nub of the facts leading to the filing of the instant case by the complainant is that the complainant sustained severe multiple injuries on his person on 21.04.15 at night, when an electric pole collapsed on him due to onslaught of severe storm. He was admitted to Diamond Harbour District Hospital that night and was released therefrom on 26.04.15. Thereafter, he has filed this complaint, when his prayer for financial help was put on the deaf ears by the O.Ps. He prays for compensations etc.

Hence, this case.

The complaint is resisted by filing written version by the O.Ps, wherein it is contended inter alia that the complainant is not a consumer and, therefore, the instant case is not maintainable before the Forum. According to the version of the O.Ps, the pole collapsed due to storm. It was an act of God and there was no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P as alleged. The case should, therefore, be dismissed in limine.

EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES

Both the parties have led their evidence on affidavit and the same are kept in record for consideration.

POINTS FOR DETERMINATION

1. Is the case maintainable in law?
2. Is the complainant entitled to relief / reliefs as prayed for?

DECISION WITH REASONS

Point nos. 1 & 2

It is contended on behalf of the O.Ps that the complainant is not the consumer of them and, therefore, the case is not maintainable in law before the Forum.

In the case of N. Kuchi Babu vs. A.P Transco., reported in 1(2010) CPJ97 (NC), it has been held that the complainant must hire the service of the electric department for becoming a consumer. Coming to the facts of the instant case it is found that the complainant has filed no documents whatsoever to prove that he is the consumer of electricity for the O.Ps. There is also no pleading of the complainant to the effect that he is a consumer of electricity. The O.Ps had strongly denied that the complainant is a consumer of them. If a person is not consumer; if a person fails to earn the distinction of consumer as defined under section 2 (1) (d), CP Act, 1986, his case will not be maintainable before this Consumer Forum. With this view of the matter we do hold that the instant case is not maintainable before the Forum, as the complainant is not the consumer of the O.Ps.

Point no. 1 is thus answered primarily against the complainant. In this context, point no. 2 requires no further discussion.

In the result, the case fails.

Hence,

ORDERED

That the complaint case be and the same is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps without any cost, as being not maintainable in law.

Let a copy of this order be supplied or sent in forth week for the parties concerned.

I/ We agreed                                                                                      President

                                Member                        Member

Dictated and corrected by me

                                                President