West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/67/2013

Sri Samir Kumar Sarkar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Asst. Engineer & Station Manager W.B.S.E.D.C.L - Opp.Party(s)

04 Mar 2014

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

 Complaint case No.67/2013                                                         Date of disposal: 04/03/2014                               

 BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT :  Mr. Sujit Kumar Das.

                                                      MEMBER :  

                                                      MEMBER :  Mr. Kapot Chattopadhyay.

    For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff : Mr. S.  Das. Advocate.

    For the Defendant/O.P.S.                           : Mr. S. K. Bhattacherjee. Advocate.                                   

          

1. Sri Samir Kumar Sarkar, S/o Late ranendra Kumar Sarkar, Resident of Flat no.D/3, Baijayanta Apartment, Rabindranagar, P.O. & P.S. Medinipur, Dist Paschim Medinipur.
2. Sri Prabir Kumar Sarkar, S/o Late R.K. Sarkar, Resident of Flat no.D/2,  Baijayanta Apartment, Rabindranagar, P.O. & P.S. Medinipur, Dist Paschim Medinipur.
3. Sri Sujan Kumar Rana, S/o Late Ashutosh Rana, Resident of Flat no.D/1, Baijayanta Apartment, Rabindranagar, P.O. & P.S. Medinipur, Dist Paschim Medinipur.
4. Sri Debal Kumar Bhattacharya, S/o Late Sudhir Ch. Bhattacharya, Resident of Flat no.B/1, Baijayanta Apartment, Rabindranagar, P.O. & P.S. Medinipur, Dist Paschim Medinipur.
5. Smt. Mukul Rani Das, W/o Late Asit Kumar Das, Resident of Flat no.B/2, Baijayanta Apartment, Rabindranagar, P.O. & P.S. Medinipur, Dist Paschim Medinipur.
6. Dr. Byomkesh Bera, S/o Late Raichand Bera, Resident of Flat no.B/3 & Shop No.X/6, Baijayanta Apartment, Rabindranagar, P.O. & P.S. Medinipur, Dist Paschim Medinipur.
7. Sri Abhijit Tripathy, S/o Late Khitish Ch. Tripathy,  Resident of Flat no.A/1, Baijayanta Apartment, Rabindranagar, P.O. & P.S. Medinipur, Dist Paschim Medinipur.
8. Sri Partha Sarathi Mandal, S/o Sri Gurupada Mandal, Resident of Flat no.D/1, Baijayanta Apartment, Rabindranagar, P.O. & P.S. Medinipur, Dist Paschim Medinipur.
9. Sri Debasis Dutta, S/o Sri Madan Mohan Dutta, Resident of Flat no.A/3, Baijayanta Apartment, Rabindranagar, P.O. & P.S. Medinipur, Dist Paschim Medinipur.
10.  Smt. Mitali Chakraborty, W/o Sri Debdulal Chakraborty, Resident of Flat no.C/1, Baijayanta Apartment, Rabindranagar, P.O. & P.S. Medinipur, Dist Paschim Medinipur.

 

                                                                                                                                                                      Contd…….P/2

 

 

                                                                                                          - ( 2 ) -

                                                                                                                                        

11. Smt. Sumita Bhattacharya (Mukherjee), D/o Sri Aloke Kr. Bhattacharya, Resident of Flat no.C/3, Baijayanta Apartment, Rabindranagar, P.O. & P.S. Medinipur, Dist Paschim Medinipur.
12. Sri Kallol Kuila, S/o Sri Pulin Behari Kuila, Shop no.X/2 & X/4, Baijayanta Apartment, Rabindranagar, P.O. & P.S. Medinipur, Dist Paschim Medinipur.
13. Sri Pulin Behari Kuila, S/o Late Nabadwip Ch kuila, Shop no.X/3, Baijayanta Apartment, Rabindranagar, P.O. & P.S. Medinipur, Dist Paschim Medinipur.
14. Smt. Bani Ojha, W/o Sri A.K. Ojha, Shop no.X/5, Baijayanta Apartment, Rabindranagar, P.O. & P.S. Medinipur, Dist Paschim Medinipur.
15.  Sri, Sukumar Maity, S/o, Late Ashutosh Maity, Shop no.X/5, Baijayanta Apartment, Rabindranagar, P.O. & P.S. Medinipur, Dist Paschim Medinipur…….Complainants.

                                                Vs.

      1)  Asst. Engineer & Station Manager

           W.B.S.E.D.C.L, P.O & P.S. Midnapore, Dist. Paschim Medinipur.

      2)  Divisional Manager. (O & M Division)

           W.B.S.E.D.C.L, P.O & P.S. Midnapore, Dist- Paschim Medinipur

      3)  Circle Manager

            W.B.S.E.D.C.L., At K-20, Saratpally, P.O & P.S. Midnapore, Dist. Paschim Medinipur

      4)  Chief Engineer

            W.B.S.E.D.C.L At Vidya Bhavan, 1^st Floor, Salt Lake, Bidhannagar, Kolkata-      

             700091.                                                                                                 …………..….Ops.

 

            The case of the complainants, in short, is that a sum of 2,99,421/- (Two lakhs ninety nine thousand four hundred twenty one) only was deposited on 07/04/2008 on account of quotation money for the purpose of getting new electric connection from the OP-W.B.S.E.D.C.L.  But after lapse of time, the contractor on behalf of the Op could not execute the work due to local objection. Even after fixation of rail poles for installation of 63 KVA transformer, it was also suggested by them that transformer is not so essential since the apartment owners are getting smooth supply of electricity for last two years.  In that case on demand of the complainants, the quotation money was not refunded.  The grievance was considered by Divisional Engineer of the OP and a direction was given for effecting connection, in default the sum of 2,99,421/- (Two lakhs ninety nine thousand four hundred twenty one) only may be refunded.  There after no response was made by the Op even after letter dt. 19/01.2013 sent to them.  Ultimately the complainants have come before us for getting relief as made in the petition.

 

                                                                                                                                                                     Contd……………..p/3

                                                                                                       - ( 3 ) -

            The Op contested the case by filing written statement challenging that the case is not maintainable for having no cause of action.  In this connection, it is stated that the apartment owners are reluctant to get refund of the deposited money.   Necessary installation work was started but the same could not be completely done due to local agitation. So there is no question of deficiency of service.

           Upon the case of both parties the following issues are framed.

Issues:

1. Whether the case is maintainable in its present form?
2. Whether the complainant has any cause of action for seeking relief as prayed for?
3. What other relief or reliefs the complainant is entitled to?

Decision with reasons

Issue Nos.1 to 3:

          All the issues are taken up for discussion.  Ld. Advocate for the complainant made his argument that quotation money was deposited long back even thereafter no transformer was installed in the premises of the apartment.  The grievance was ultimately considered by the Divisional Engineer who passed necessary order for installation in failure the deposited money should be refunded.  Even thereafter the Ops are not taking necessary steps.  This is very much unfair trade practice.  In this connection, Ld. Advocate has discussed very elaborately regarding the decisions reported in 1 (2003) CPJ 292 and 1998 CCJ 394 that incase of new connection being not given due to any reason,  the deposited amount with interest shall be refunded.  Further, in case of failure of releasing electric connection, the electricity Department is liable for unfair tirade practice and thus compensation should be granted in favour of suffering consumer.

       Ld. Advocate for the op made his reply that suitable place for installation of transformer was not provided.  Even so, it is evident that the OP primarily executed their the work by fixing railpole for installation line of 63 KVA for effecting new service connection to the complainants premises within their housing complex.  It is admitted that the work was suspended due to local objection and as such the Op was compelled to remove the railpole which causes unnecessary financial loss.  Under such circumstances, all the complainants were given new electricity connection in their individual name and thereby they are enjoying electricity.  Thus, Ld. Advocate for the Op tried to convince us that there is no evidence to show that the Ops are liable for deficiency of service in performing their duties.  Always the Ops are even today ready for installation of transformer according to the desires of the complainants subject to necessary way leave in this behalf.  In this connection, Ld. advocate has fortified his argument on law point by virtue of taking resort of The Kolkata Gazette, extraordinary, may 31, 2010.

 

                                                                                                                                                                               Contd………..p/4

 

                                                                                                                - ( 4 ) -

         We have carefully considered the argument in the background of the entire case of the parties and it appears that installation of transformer could not be succeeded due to local agitation and alternatively supply of electricity was effected to from the end of the Op.  In this contest, the actual reason for such failure of installation of transformer is to be established by the Op on the point of statutory liability.  To this question, from the direction of   The Kolkata Gazette, extraordinary, May 31, 2010 as pointed out by the Ld. Advocate is that - 3.2.1. No new connection shall be given unless the following document(s) is/are submitted by the intending consumer with the application in the form given in Annexure-A, completed in every respect, where applicable.

1. In-principle clearance for establishment from the Pollution Control Board concerned, wherever applicable.
2. Document(s) of bona fide occupation or ownership of a premises, such as Passport/Voter Identity Card/ Rent Bill/ Rent Control Challan/ Telephone Bill/ Municipal or any other Tx Bill/ any other document issued by any Ministry or Department of Government showing his occupancy in the premises etc.
3. Way leave permission in the specified format in Form-1.

           Upon the provisions appearing in the notification above, it is incumbent upon the complainant to provide way leave permission for obtaining new electric connection.  But no such evidence is forthcoming before us in order to show that the complainants have duly observed the statutory formal leave satisfying the requirement of way leave permission as specified in the prescribe form .

       Under the facts and circumstances, we do not find any valid ground in the case of the complainants.  Thus, it is held and decided that there is no deficiency of service against the Ops.  As a result, the complaint case fails.  All the issues are held and decided in favour of the Op.

  

                               Hence,

                                         it is, ordered,

                                          that the case be and the same is dismissed  on contest  without cost.

Dic. & Corrected by me

              

         President                                Member                                                           President

                                                                                                                              District Forum

                                                                                                                        Paschim Medinipur.