IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC/81/2019
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
02.07.2019 09.08.2019 05.12.2023
Complainant: Bimalendu Chandra,
S/o- Late Mrityunjay Chandra,
Vill- Nalhatri,
P.O.- Rampara,
P.S.-Rejinagar,
Dist-Murshidabad.
PIN-742189
Present Address & Proprietor of B.V.M. Enterprise
(which is a brickfield) having its registered office at:
Vill Majlishpur, P.O. Kamnagar, P.S.- Saktipur,
Dist- Murshidabad, Pin-742405
-Vs-
Opposite Party: 1. Sri Chandi Mondal,
S/o- Basudeb Mondal of Vill- Nalhati, P.S- Rejinagar,
Dist- Murshidabad, Pin- 742189
2. The Station Manager, Shaktipur Customer Care Centre,
WBSEDCL, P.O.- Shaktipur, Murshidabad, Pin-742163
Agent/Advocate for the Complainant : Debanshu Sengupta
Agent/Advocate for the O.P. No. 1 : Madan Mohan Dutta
Agent/Advocate for the O.P. No. 2 : S.S. Dhar
Present: Sri Ajay Kumar Das…………………………..........President.
Sri. Nityananda Roy…………………………………….Member.
FINAL ORDER
Sri. ajay kumar das, presiding member.
This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.
One Bimalendu Chandra (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against Sri Chandi Mondal and Anr. (here in after referred to as the O.P.s) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.
The sum and substance of the complaint case is as follows:-
The Complainant is the owner and proprietor of the brickfield under the name and style “V.V.M. Enterprise” situated at Vill- Majlishpur under Saktipur P.S. O.P. No. 1 was the employee of the Complainant. The electric connection of the said brickfield was taken in the name of O.P. No. 1. Subsequently, the Complainant wanted to change the name of electric connection in his own name. Accordingly, the Complainant applied to O.P. No. 2. The Complainant obtained “No Objection” certificate from the O.P. No. 1 to that effect. Thereafter, the Complainant had sacked the O.P. No. 1 from his employment and as such the O.P. No. 1 with intention to harass the Complainant and to defame him in the eyes of everyone had unduly influenced the O.P. No. 2 to discontinue such electric connection of the Complainant by alleging that the Complainant had partaken undue means to change the name of the said connection by submitting documents and a “No Objection” affidavit with false and fabricated signature of the O.P. No. 1.
Hence, the Complainant is under tremendous threat and tension that his said electricity connection would have been arbitrarily disconnected at any moment by the O.P. No. 2 and also O.P. No. 2 threatened not to accept the electric bill which the Complainant was willing to pay.
In the above premises he prayed before this Ld. Commission to pass a decree directing the O.P. No. 2 to restrain himself from disconnecting the said electric connection of the Complainant and also accept the electric bill which the Complainant shall pay time to time and direct the O.P. No. 1 to pay a compensation amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- in favour of the Complainant for making the Complainant to suffer immense harassment, mental pain & agony etc.
The Complainant also filed a petition on 09.07.2019 praying for interim decree directing the O.P. No. 2 to restrain himself from disconnecting the electric connecting of the Complainant and directing the O.P. No. 1 to pay an interim compensation amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-
Defence Case
After due service of the notice the O.P. No. 1 is contesting the case by filing W/V contending inter alia that O.P. No. 1 was one of the partners of the said brickfield under the name and style “V.V.M. Enterprise” situated at Vill- Majlishpur under Saktipur P.S. since 2004.
The O.P. No. 1 never signed any “No Objection” certificate in the form of affidavit. He has prayed for rejection of the instant complaint.
O.P. No. 2 is also contesting the case by filing W/V contending inter alia that on 05.10.2018 the O.P. No. 1 raised objection against the change of name of electric connection stating that the application for changing has been made without his consent. The O.P. sent objection along with relevant documents to the O.P. No. 1 for confirmation. The O.P. No. 1 on 21.01.2019 stated that the signatures of the documents were fabricated and forged. Thereafter, the O.P. sent a letter to the Complainant stating the allegation made by the O.P. No. 1 and asked to explain the fact vide Memo No. SKP/26/1456 dated 16.05.2019. But without giving any answer the Complainant filed the instant application. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the O.P. No. 2.
Points for decision
1. Is the Complainant a consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?
2. Have the O.P.s any deficiency in service, as alleged?
3. Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?
Decision with Reasons:
Point no.1, 2 & 3
All the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity of discussion.
The point to be noted is that no step is taken by the Complainant for a long period and the O.P.s are also found absent today i.e. 05.12.2023. Such being the position we are decided to dispose of the instant complaint on the basis of the materials on record.
The Complainant prayed before this District Commission to pass a decree directing the O.P. No. 2 to restrain himself from disconnecting the said electric connection of the Complainant. If we consider the prayer portion of the Complainant we find no reason to believe that there any deficiency of service on the part of the O.P. No. 2. This Commission has only jurisdiction to decide whether there any defect of goods or whether there is any deficiency of service. The complainant filed the following documents before the O.P. No. 2 for changing the name of electric connection.
i) Way leave in prescribe format duly signed by Chandi Mondal O.P.
ii) An Affidavit containing the “No Objection” regarding change of ownership duly singed by O.P. No. 1.
iii) Certificate from W.B. Pollution control Board in favour of the Petitioner.
iv) Trade Licence in favour of the O.P. and the Petitioner jointly.
Thereafter receiving of such application the O.P. No. 2 processed the application and the connection had been changed in the system on 11.09.2018. Thereafter the electric bills against the Consumer ID No. 313189925 were raised in the name of B.V.M. enterprise proprietor Bimalendu Chandra and the Bills have been paid accordingly.
On 05.10.2018 the O.P. No. 1 raised objection against the change of name of the electric connection stating that the change has been made without his consent. The O.P. no. 2 sent the objection along with relevant documents to the O.P. No. 1 for confirmation. The O.P. No. 1 on 21.01.2019 stated that the signature on the documents are fabricated and forged. Thereafter the O.P. sent a letter to the Complainant stating the allegation made by O.P. No. 1 and asked him to explain the fact vide Memo No. SKP/26/1456 dated 16-05-2019. But without giving any answer the Petitioner filed the instant application. The O.P. No. 2 relying upon the documents filed to the office had changed the name of the Consumer. So, this there is no deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of this O.P.
In the instant case the Complainant has failed to establish that there was any deficiency of service on the part of O.P. No. 2.
The Complainant has stated that O.P. No. 1 gave “No Objection” certificate whereas O.P. No. 1 has stated he did not give any “No Objection” certificate. Such type of dispute cannot be decided through the summery procedure adopted by the District Commission.
Further we find that the electric connection in question is an industrial connection having Consumer I.D. No. 313189925. Here we find that the Complainant or O.P. No. 1 availed services of electric connection for commercial purpose and as such the Complainant cannot be treated as consumer as per provisions of section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act.
In view of the matter discussed above we are of the view that the instant case is liable to be dismissed.
Reasons for delay
The Case was filed on 02.07.2019 and admitted on 09.08.2019. This Commission tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act, 1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day orders.
In the result, the Consumer case fails.
Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is
Ordered
that the complaint Case No. CC/81/2019 be and the same is dismissed on merit against the O.P.s but under the circumstances without any order as to costs and consequently the application filed by the Complainant on 9th July, 2019 praying for interim relief is also rejected.
Let plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand /by post under proper acknowledgment as per rules, for information and necessary action.
The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:
confonet.nic.in
Dictated & corrected by me.
President
Member President.
