DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR,
KOLKATA-700 0144
C.C. CASE NO. __29_ _ OF ___2017
DATE OF FILING :_7.3.2017 DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT: _6.8.2018
Present : President : Ananta Kumar Kapri
Member(s) : Subrata Sarker & Jhunu Prasad
COMPLAINANT : Babli Khutiya, wife of Late Mrityunjay Khutiya, Village Bamuner Lot, P.O Shibkalinagar, P.S Harwood Point Coastal, Dist. South 24-Parganas.
O.P/O.Ps : 1. West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. Bidyut Bhavan, Salt Lake City.
2. Director, West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. Bidyut Bhavan, Salt Lake City, Kolkata – 64.
3. Divisional Manager, Kakdwip Division, WBSEDCL, Ganeshpur 3rd Gheri, P.O & P.S Kakdwip, Dist. South 24-Parganas, Pin-743347.
4. Station Manager, Kakdwip Customer Care Service, Kakdwip Ganeshpur, Dist. South 24-Parganas, Pin-743347.
_______________________________________________________________________
J U D G M E N T
Sri Ananta Kumar Kapri, President
The facts leading to the filing of the instant case by the complainant may be epitomized as follows.
Late Mrityunjay Khutiya was the husband of the complainant. He was a fish seller and used to sell fish from door to door. On 31.7.2015 he went out of his house in early hours of morning for going to the wholesale fish market for the purpose of purchasing fish. When he came out of his house, the high tension electric wire fell down upon him and the said husband of the complainant got electrocuted . He was taken to Diamond Harbour Sub Divisional Hospital and the doctor declared him as dead. Post mortem examiantion was conducted upon the dead body of the said person. The complainant lodged a complaint before the O.Ps ,claiming compensation for tragic death of her husband. But the O.P turned a deaf ear to her request and, therefore, the complainant has filed the instant case ,praying for compensation etc. against the O.Ps. Hence, arises the instant case.
The O.Ps have been contesting the case by filing written statement ,wherein it is contended inter alia that the complainant is not a consumer and ,therefore, the case is not
maintainable before the Forum. The positive case of the O.Ps is that the husband of the complainant was never a fish seller and a false story has been concocted by the complainant in order to get compensation from the O.Ps. The husband of the complainant was an employee of a cable operator and he climbed the electric pole for drawing cable line and during such activity the GI wire which was already drawn from one electric pole to another for the purpose of drawing cable line, got snapped at one end and the said end touched the high tension wire. The deceased climbed the pole and touched the said G.I wire , as a consequence of which he succumbed to death. There is no negligence on the part of the O.Ps and, therefore, the complainant is not entitled to get damages as prayed for .
Upon the averments of the parties, the following points are formulated for consideration.
POINT FOR DETERMINATION
- Is the case maintainable in Law?
- Are the O.Ps guilty of deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant?
- Is the complainant entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for ?
Evidence on affidavit is filed by the complainant and the O.Ps. Questionnaire, and BNA filed herein are kept in the record after consideration.
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point no.1, 2 & 3 :
Already heard the submissions of Ld. Lawyers ,appearing for the parties . Perused the petition of complaint, written version of the O.P and the materials on record. Considered all these.
A case is maintainable before this Forum only when the complainant becomes a consumer within the meaning of section 2(1)(d) of the C.P Act, 1986. The dispute must be a consumer dispute before the Forum and unless it is a consumer dispute, such dispute cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum.
The word “Service” is defined under section 2(1)(o ) of the C.P Act, 1986 and the term “Service” includes, amongst others ,the supply of energy within its ambit. So, supply of electricity is also a kind of service. But, he complainant will have to first plead and proof that she is a consumer of electricity and when she succeeds to prove that she is such a consumer , the service rendered by the Electricity Department will be regarded as the “Service” within the term of its meaning under section 2(1)(o) of the C.P Act, 1986. In N. Kunchi Babu V. A.P Transco [1(2010)CPJ 97 (NC)] , it has been held that a case will not be maintainable unless the complainant proves that he hired the service of O.P by way of taking electricity in his premises.
Coming to the facts of the instant case, it is found that the complainant has no document to prove that she is a consumer of Electric Department i.e the O.Ps. In the petition of complaint, it has been stated by the complainant that she is a consumer of electricity and that her Consumer I.D no. 100595642. She could have filed a bill of electricity to prove that she is a valid consumer of the O.Ps. But no such bill is filed by her. It is mentioned in para 3of her petition of complaint that electric bill is annexed as Annexure B . But no bill is found annexed with the petition of complaint and when such bill was not found annexed with the petition of complaint, the complainant was directed to produce all the documents she has relied before the Forum, Vide order no. 16 dated 13.6.2018. The complainant has filed the documents upon which she relies. But no electric bill is filed by her. So , the complainant does not have any electric bill; she does not have any electric connection in her house. The averment of her in the petition of complaint that her Consumer ID no. is 100595642 appears to be absolutely false. The complainant filed affidavit in chief but does not mention anywhere in that affidavit in chief that the Consumer ID number of the complainant is 100595642. The complainant will have to plead and prove that she is a consumer. In the instant case , there is no document filed by the complainant to prove that she is a consumer of the O.Ps. She has no evidence also to prove that she pays electric charges to the O.Ps for consuming electricity in her house. In such circumstances and in view of the discussions made above, we feel no hesitation whatsoever to say that the complainant is not a consumer of the O.Ps and ,therefore, the instant case appears to be not maintainable in Law before the Forum.
As the case is not maintainable before the Forum, any discussion on point no.2and 3 as referred to above appears to be redundant.
In the result, the case fails.
Hence,
ORDERED
That the complaint case be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OP.P, but without any cost.
Let a free copy of this order be given to the parties concerned at once.
President
I / We agree
Member Member
Dictated and corrected by me
President
