This is appeal under section 15 of CP Act against the order of Ld. D.C.D.R.F, Uttar Dinajpur dated 26/07/2018 in reference to CC no. 39 of 2017. The consumer complaint case no. 39 of 2017 was initiated against the appellant that is WBSEDCL under section 12 of CP Act for paying compensation for deficiency of service, refund of money, litigation cost etc. The fact of the case in nutshell is that the complainant being an unemployed person started a proprietorship business in the name and style Shankar Food for self-employment. He required bulk electric connection at his establishment. After receiving the application of new service connection, the appellant authority after enquiry the spot, demanded Rs. 2,16,535 as security money and Rs. 1,18,375 as new bulk connection charge from the complainant who has paid the said money on 24/08/2018. Thereafter due to unavoidable circumstances the bulk connection could not be provided to the factory of the complainant and for that reason they have refunded the security deposit of Rs. 2,16,535 to the complainant but the bulk connection installation charge of Rs. 1,18,374 was remained non-refundable. Thereafter the complainant was approached by the appellant Company to take LT. Connection and the amount of installation charge & security deposit was demanded to the tune of Rs. 3,34,928 and the same was duly paid by the complainant before the appellant company. Thereafter the Lt. Connection was installed in the factory of the complainant. The complainant approached the appellant company to refund the bulk connection charge Rs. 1,18,375 from the appellant company but his approach was not entertained by the appellant company. So, the complainant finding no other alternative has approached before the Ld. Forum Uttar Dinajpur for appropriate relief. The appellant company had contested the said consumer complaint by filing written statement and disputed all the claims and allegations of the complainant and contended that the refund of Rs. 1,18,375 as mentioned by the complainant for bulk connection charge could not be entertained by the appellant company due to provisions of section 7.12 of the notification no. 53/WBERC dated 02/04/2013. Further case of the appellant is that the value of the already executed work expended by the appellant company was more than the connection charge of Rs. 1,18,375. The appellant company in their written version specifically mentioned that the consumer complainant respondent was asked to procure the NOC for installation of bulk electric connection in his factory was not complied with by the consumer complainant and for that reason there was no deficiency of service on the part of the WBSEDCL that is the appellant company. After hearing both sides and after recording the evidences Ld. A\Forum has come to a conclusion that due to local protest and objection the WBSEDCL could not install the bulk electric connection in the factory of the complainant which was beyond the control of the appellant company and they have already executed some works like erecting of rail polls etc. and for that reason Ld. Forum has asked the WBSEDCL to refund only 1,18,375 after deducting Rs. 1,00,000 from the whole amount of electric connection charge to the tune of Rs. 1,18,375. Ld. Forum in its judgement and final order also kept open to estimate the value of actual work which was done by the appellant company to be enquired by any senior officer or regional manager of the appellant company and thereafter the Forum would pass a necessary order. The Ld. Forum has asked in this order to complete the said process of enquiry within 3 months and it was opined in the order that if it was found that the amount of work already done for installing the bulk connection was less than the security deposit amount paid by the complainant then the appellant company would make payment of the rest amount after deduction of Rs. 1,18,375. Ld. Forum further directed the appellant company to make immediate payment of Rs. 18,375 for refund as service connection charge, compensation of Rs. 30,000 and litigation cost Rs. 20,000 to the complainant. Being aggrieved with this order this appeal follows on the ground that the decisions of the Ld. Forum otherwise contrary to law taking an irrelevant consideration into account and has failed to exercise the judicial discretion and the impugned order was passed which was not vested with law. After admission of the appeal the respondent that is the consumer complainant Ankit Khetan was issued notice, he appeared and contested the appeal case by appointing Ld. Advocate Mr. Ranjan Ray and ors. The appeal was heard in presence of both sides.

Decision with Reasons

After hearing the Ld. Advocates of both sides, this Commission found that the respondent in order to run a factory for his self-employment has deposited security deposit and bulk connection charge for installation of 41.03 KW of electricity and the process of installation of said Ht. Connection line was initiated by the appellant company but subsequently the local people of  the market area of Dalkhola has raised protest form the angle of environmental hazard and for that reason the process of executing the work of installation of 41.03 KW line in the factory of the complainant remained stopped. Thereafter in the alternative process for electric installation a LT. Connection line was provided to the factory by the WBSEDCL, after procuring the separate security deposit and connection charge.

The main dispute is that the complainant/respondent could not obtain the refund as security deposit Rs. 1,18,375 which he had deposited for installation of bulk connection in his factory. The appellant company contended before the Ld. Forum and also before this Commission that the Company had no fault on its part as because after securing the security deposit and installation charge, the company started after the process of excenting the work, issued work order, erection of polls and other incidental works where the company had to spent a huge money which was more than the connection charge to the tune of Rs. 1,18,375. So, the appellant authority is not in a position to refund the entire amount of the connection charge of Rs. 1,18,375. The appellant company mentions that they have already returned back the security deposit of Rs. 2,16,535. It is contended at the time of argument on the part of the Ld. Advocate of the appellant company that the respondent of this case was not come before the Forum with clean hands as because when there was protest on the part of the agitators against the process of Ht. Connection in the factory of the respondent/complainant, he was duly informed by the appellant company by a letter dated 08/10/2015 to submit a valid NOC or way leave permission from the appropriate authority prior to under taking the erection work on the part of the WBSEDCL. WBSEDCL that is the appellant has started to execute the work and thereafter when it was detected that the tasks of installing 41.03 KW electric connection in the factory was quite impossible. The Lt. Connection was installed there by which the respondent/appellant started to run his factory for his business purpose. So, there was no fault on the part of the appellant company in this regard and Ld. Forum has failed to understand the actual position. The order of refund of Rs. 18,375 and the order of payment of litigation cost and compensation are totally unapproachable in the eye of law. Ld. Advocate of the respondent at the time of argument mentioned that Ld. Forum has rightly observed the facts and circumstances of the case and appreciated the cases of both the parties and has given an opportunity to the appellant company to have an enquiry to ascertain the exact cost of execution work which were done by the appellant company at the time of processing the installation of 41.03 KW electric line which become abandoned due to unavoidable circumstances. It is further mentioned on the part of the respondent that Ld. Forum has given the option to the appellant company to submit the actual expenditure they have incurred for such work and if it was found that the value of actual executed work was more than the bulk connection charge then the excess amount would be adjusted. But the appellant company has not availed the said option. After going through the merit of this case and after hearing the agreements canvassed by the legal counselors of both the parties it appears to us that the order of Ld. Forum directing the appellant company to make refund of Rs. 18,375 to the respondent is not unjustified one. On the other hand, there was no serious latches on the part of the appellant company. So the amount of compensation of Rs. 30,000 and litigation cost Rs. 20,000 appears to us very harsh and excessive one. So, in our view the order of Ld. Forum should be modified to some extent as follows: -

Hence it is ordered: -

That the appeal be and the same is partly allowed on contest without any cost. The order of Ld. Forum in CC/39/2017 asking the appellant company to make refund of Rs. 18,375 as service connection charge within one month remains intact. If the appellant company fails to make refund of Rs. 18,375 to the respondent within one month from the date of receiving the copy of order of this appeal, the appellant company will be liable to pay 5 per cent interest per annum from the date of default of payment till recovery. The amount of compensation as awarded by the Ld. Forum to the tune of Rs. 30,000 is hereby reduced to Rs. 10,000 and the cost of litigation is reduced to Rs.10,000 instead of Rs. 20000. The amount of compensation & litigation cost as modified by this order of this Commission shall be paid by the appellant to the respondent within one month from the date of receiving the final order of appeal, failing which 5 per cent per annum over the said money shall be carried on till the date of recovery. Let a copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost and the same be communicated to the concerned Forum through e-mail.