DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS,
AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 0144
C.C. CASE NO. 152 OF 2016
DATE OF FILING: 20/12/2016 DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT: 07/06/2018
Present : President : Ananta Kumar Kapri
Member(s) : Subrata Sarker & Jhunu Prasad
COMPLAINANT : SK. Wasim Kader, S/o – Sk. Hasibul Kader, Vill – Raghabpur, P.O – Bishnupur, P.S - Bishnupur, Dist – South 24 Parganas, Pin – 700 103,
Proprietor of “New Prince Bakery” of Raghabpur, P.O – Neplgunge, P.S- Bishnupur, Dist – South 24 Parganas
- VERSUS -
O.P/O.Ps : 1) Executive Engineer, W.B.S.E.D. Company Ltd. Registered Office – Bidyut Bhavan, Block – DJ, Sector-II, Bidhannagr, Kolkata-700 091
2) Statoion Manager, Assistant Engineer, Pailan CCC, W.B.S.E.D. Company Ltd. Bhasa, Bishnupur, South 24 Parganas
_____________________________________________________________________________________
J U D G M E N T
Sri Ananta Kumar Kapri, President
The brief facts leading to the filing of the instant case are that the complainant was running the factory of Bakery Business in the name of “New Prince Bakery” on a plot of land belonging to one Avijit Bag, having taken the same on rental basis from him. Two meters bearing no. - P182869 and L1873743 were placed in the said factory by the O.P- 2. Electric bill was paid by the complainant up to the month of October, 2016. Still, one day, i.e. on 26.09.16 the employees of O.P-2 came to the factory of the complainant and disconnected the electric line without giving any prior intimation of disconnection. Repeated request of complainant for restoration of electric line ended in smoke. Now, the complainant prays for restoration of his electric line and payment of compensation etc. Hence, this case.
The O.P has been contesting this case by filing written statement wherein it is contended inter alia that the complainant is not a consumer as he took the electric connection for commercial purpose and therefore the present case is not maintainable in law. The positive case as made out in the written version filed by the O.Ps is that there was an electric connection in the said premises and the previous owner thereof made theft of energy _____ for which a sum of Rs. 3,74,980/- fell due from the complainant. That dues has not been cleared by the complainant. Rather, complainant has suppressed all these facts in his application and has thereby managed to take an electric line by suppressing the material facts. The electric line of complainant has therefore been disconnected with notice of disconnection. As the complainant has no cause of action for maintenance of this case, the case should be dismissed in limine with cost.
Upon the averments of the parties, the following points are formulated for consideration.
POINTS FOR DETERMINATION
- Is the case maintainable in its present form and in the law?
- Are the O.Ps guilty of deficiency in service for disconnecting electric line of the complainant without notice of disconnection?
- Is the complainant entitled to relief / reliefs as prayed for?
EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES
Evidence is filed on affidavit by both the parties. Questionnaires, reply and BNA filed by the parties are kept in record.
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point no. - 1
Perused the petition of complaint, written version of the O.Ps and also the evidence on record. Considered all these alongwith the submission made on behalf of the parties.
Some material facts transpire on the pleading of the complainant. It transpires in his pleading that he runs a bakery named and styled “New Prince Bakery”. A copy of trade license which is issued by Panakua Gram Panchayat to the complainant is also filed herein and the same is marked as ‘Annexure- B’ to the petition of compliant. On perusal of ‘Annexure-B’, it is found that the trade license has been given to the complainant for manufacture and sale of bread, cake, biscuit etc. From all these materials, we feel no hesitation to hold that the complainant conducts a commercial business and that the electric connection from the O.P-2 was taken to his factory for commercial purpose. If any service is hired or availed of by any person for commercial purpose, the said person can never be regarded as a “consumer” under section 2 (1) (d) of CP Act, 1986, unless he enjoys the protection of “explanation” to section 2 (1) (d) of the said Act. Going through the four corners of the petition of compliant, nowhere is the complainant found to make an averment that he conducts the business of bakery by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. We are not also oblivious of the present position of law that the complainant may take the help of one or two additional persons for conducting his business, although it is mentioned in the statute that the business must be conducted exclusively by him. But a pleading to the effect that the business is conducted for earning livelihood by means of self-employment is a sine-qua-non to earn the distinction of a consumer. The present complainant is deemed to have failed to earn the said distinction of the consumer for the reasons as discussed above and as such the instant complaint appears to be not maintainable in law.
Point no. 1 is thus answered against the complainant.
Two other points i.e. points no. 2 and 3 do not require any further discussion in view of conclusion drawn on point no. 1.
In the result, the case fails.
Hence,
ORDERED
That the complaint case be and the same is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps but, without cost.
Let a copy of this order be supplied or sent free of cost at once to the parties concerned.
I/ We agree. President
Member Member
Dictated and corrected by me
President
