West Bengal

Birbhum

CC/125/2015

Md.Badruddin Sk, - Complainant(s)

Versus

1.The Assistant Engineer,Murarai Customer Care - Opp.Party(s)

Sidhartha Thakur

21 Mar 2018

ORDER

Shri Biswa Nath Konar, President.

            The case of the complainant Md. Badruddin Sk., in brief, is that he is a permanent resident of Vill. Sapua, P.S. Murarai, Dist. Birbhum and he obtained electric connection being consumer ID No. 522123091 in his land situated in Plot No. 45 under Mouza Sapua for his submersible shallow pump and he had been paying bill regularly.

            It is the further case of the complainant that on 21.11.2006 he sold out the said submersible to O.P No.2 Moddeswar Sk. (sale receipt was executed on 17.07.2007) and the O.P No.2 uplifted the said pump and installed it in his own land. The complainant requested the O.P No.1 on several occasion to transfer the connection in the name of O.P No.2 and send the bill in his name but in vain.

            It is the further case of the complainant that he informed the O.P No.1 in this regard on 21.11.2006, 20.11.2014 and 19.01.2015 by sending letters but inspite of that the O.P No.1 sent a bill of Rs. 2872/- for the month of March 2015 with arrear bill of Rs. 109440.79 in the name of the complainant.

            It the next case of the complainant that act of the O.P No.1/ Electricity Department is gross negligence of the business policy which causes mental pain and agony to the complainant.

Hence this case for directing the O.P No.1 to delete the name of the complainant from consumer ID No. 522123091 and to disconnect his line and to declare the sale receipt dt. 17.7.2007 is a valid one and effective from the date of execution i.e. on 21.11.06 with compensation of Rs. 50000/-.

            The O.P No.1/WBSEDCL Murarai has contested the case by filing written version denying all material allegations of the complainant contending inter alia that the case is not maintainable. The complainant has no cause of action to bring this case.

            It is the specific case of the O.P No.1/WBSEDCL that the complainant is not a consumer under the O.P as he sold the submersible pump to one Moddeswasr Sk. on 21.11.2006 and got the sale receipt on 17.07.2007. But the complainant intimated the O.P on 20.11.2014. So, during that period from 17.07.2007 to 20.11.2014 the unmetered bill was generated in the name of the complainant and he is bound to pay the outstanding amount of Rs. 79394/-, ultimately the O.P No.1 prayed for dismissal of the case.

            Inspite of due service of notice O.P No.2 Moddeswar Sk. has not appeared in this case and the case was heard ex parte against him.

Point for determination.

1.  Whether the complainant is a consumer under Sec. 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act.?
2. Whether this Forum has jurisdiction to try this case?
3. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any other relief or reliefs as prayed for?

DECISION WITH REASONS

During the trial the complainant Badruddin Sk. has examined himself as P.W.1 and he was cross examined by O.P No.1. Some documents have been submitted by him.

No evidence adduced by the O.P No.1 either in oral or documentary.

Argument of the Ld. Advocate/Agent of the both parties has been heard.

Point No.1:: It is the case of the O.P No.1 that the complainant is not consumer under them since the date of transfer of submersible shallow in question i.e. from 17.07.2007.

            But bill for March 2015 shows that by sending said bill the O.P Electric Co. claim Rs. 109440.49p. from the complainant in respect of the disputed electric connection.

            So, relation between the complainant and O.P No.1 as consumer and service provider is still in existence and it cannot be said the complainant is not consumer under O.P No.1.

            Thus this point is decided in favour of the complainant.

So, the complainant is consumer u/s 2(1)(d)(ii) of C.P. Act.

Point No.2:- O.P No1 electric company has Office and O.P No.2 Moddeswar Sk. has resident within jurisdiction of this Forum.

The total valuation of the case is Rs. 50000/- which is far less than maximum limit of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Forum i.e. Rs. 20,00,000/-. So, this Forum has territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction.

Point No. 3 and 4:- Both points are taken up together for convenience of discussion as they are related to each other.

            The complainant in his complaint and evidence stated thathe is a permanent resident of Vill. Sapua, P.S. Murarai, Dist. Birbhum and he obtained electric connection being consumer ID No. 522123091 in his land situated in Plot No. 45 under Mouza Sapua for his submersible shallow pump and he had been paying bill regularly.

            Impugned bill and copy of money receipts show that the complainant is a consumer under O.P No.1 in respect of consumer ID No. 522123091.

            The complainant in his evidence further stated that on 21.11.2006 he sold out the said submersible to O.P No.2 Moddeswar Sk. (sale receipt was executed on 17.07.2007) and the O.P No.2 uplifted the said pump and installed it in his own land. The complainant requested the O.P No.1 on several occasion to transfer the connection in the name of O.P No.2 and send the bill in his name but in vain.

             Copy of money receipt shows that the complainant has sold out the submersible in question to the O.P No.2 Moddeswar Sk. at a price of Rs. 51000/-, out of which Rs. 40000/- was paid and remaining Rs. 11000/- was to be paid within six months.

            The complainant in his evidence further stated that he informed the O.P No.1 in this regard on 21.11.2006, 20.11.2014 and 19.01.2015 by sending letters but inspite of that the O.P No.1 sent a bill of Rs. 2872/- for the month of March 2015 with arrear bill of Rs. 109440.79 in the name of the complainant.

            We find that the complainant in his complaint and evidence stated that he sold out his submersible to O.P No.2 in respect of his electric connection and requested the O.P No.1 to transfer the name of O.P No.2.

            But there is no such provision of transfer of any such electric line to name of another person in respect of separate land.

            In his evidence the complainant stated that he informed the O.P about transfer on 21.11.06, 20.11.14 and 19.01.2015 but copy of the intimation and receipt show that he informed the O.P No.1 on 20.11.2014 and 19.01.2015 and there is nothing to show that he informed the O.P No.1 on 21.11.2006.

            So, it is clear that only on 20.11.2014 the complainant informed the O.P No.1 for the first time.

            We find that the complainant has prayed for passing an order directing the O.P No.1 to disconnect the line.

            Certainly he can get disconnect his line on payment of previous dues.

            We further find that the complainant has prayed for declaring that the sale receipt dated 17.07.2007 is a valid one and effective from the date of execution i.e. 21.11.2006.

            But this Forum is established to decide dispute between consumer and service provider and this Forum cannot pass any such declaration.

            Considering overall matter into consideration and materials on record we do not find any deficiency in service and illegal trade practice on the part of the O.P No.1 and the case is liable to be dismissed without cost.

Hence, both the points are decided against complainant.

Accordingly the case fails.

Proper fees have been paid.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

that C.F case No. 125/2015 be and the same is dismissed on contest against O.P No.1 and ex parte against the O.P No.2 without any order as to cost.

Copy of this order be supplied to the parties each free of cost.