IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC/181/2018.
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
28.11.18 06.12.18 05.06.23
Complainant:Atis Kumar Sen
S/O Lt. Samir Kr. Sen. 37 B.B. Sen Road,
PO & PS-Berhampore, Pin-742101
-Vs-
Opposite Party:1.Divisional Manager, WBSEDCL
PO & PS- Berhampore, Pin-742101
2.Station Manager, WBSEDCL, Khargra CCC
PO-Khagra, PS-Berhampore,Pin-742103
Agent/Advocate for the Complainant : Pranab Kr. Das
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Parties :S.S. Dhar.
Present: Sri Ajay Kumar Das………………………….......President.
Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………..Member.
Sri. Nityananda Roy……………………………….Member.
FINAL ORDER
Sri.ajaykumar das, presiding member.
This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.
One Atis Kumar Sen(here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against Divisional Manager, WBSEDCL, Berhampore&Anr.(here in after referred to as the OPs) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.
The material facts giving rise to file the complaint are that:-
The Complainant is a traffic warden serving at Berhampore Traffic and that is his only livelihood.
The father of the Complainant Samir Kumar Sen since deceased was a consumer under the OP No. 2. He was regular payee of the bills as was raised by the OPs. There was a false case lodged against the father of the Complainant being Berhampore Police Station case No. 1209 of 2012 dated 13.09.2012. During the pendency of the case the father of the Complainant passed away on 08.05.2013. The same was informed before the Ld. Court and Ld. Court was pleased to file the case vide order dated 18.09.14.
The OP without any valid reason had kept the domestic premises of the Complainant disconnected. It is needless to mention that electric supply is very much necessity in day to day work and in all activities.
The OPs without assigning any kind of valid reason had denied to meet the inexpedience of the Complainant and is in a motive to somehow deceit the Complainant.
The Complainant approached the OPs for proper redress and prayed for the proper remedy. But instead the OPs showed inattention towards the Complainant and thus misbehaved with the Complainant.
Finding no other alternatives the Complainant filed this case for proper redress against the OPs and praying for directing the OPs to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- for mental agony and harassment and praying for directing the OPs to pay all costs of the case to the Complainants.
The OPs are contesting the case by filing written version contending inter alia that the case is not maintainable. The specific case of the OPs is that the Complainant asked the OP to provide new electric connection at 37 B.B. Sen Road, PS-Berhampore. But a huge outstanding dues of Rs. 1,10,190/- and Rs/ 40,344/- against the Consumer Id No. 313017235 and 313146998 respectively lying dues. So, new connection cannot be effected before payment of the outstanding dues in the above mentioned holding as per sub section 3.4.2 of regulation No. 36 made by WBERC dated 12.09.2007. So as per ruled the Complainant is required to pay all outstanding dues to the licensee in respect of the abovementioned service connections.
It is the further case of the OP that the death of Samir Kumar Sen during the pendency of IE Case No. 123/2012 do not prove that the OP is not entitled to get the outstanding dues.
On the basis of the complaint and the written versions the following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case:
Points for decision
- Is the Complainant a consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?
2. Has the OP 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 today is fixed for hearing of argument as last chance. But the Complainant is found absent on call. The Ld. Adv. for the OP is present. The record shows that the Complainant has not been taking steps for long period. Such being the position, we heard the Ld. Advocate for the OP and the case record is taken up today for final order on merit.
The case of the Complainant in short is thatthe Complainant is a traffic warden serving at Berhampore Traffic and that is his only livelihood.
The father of the Complainant Samir Kumar Sen since deceased was a consumer under the OP No. 2. He was regular payee of the bills as was raised by the OPs. There was a false case lodged against the father of the Complainant being Berhampore Police Station case No. 1209 of 2012 dated 13.09.2012. During the pendency of the case the father of the Complainant passed away on 08.05.2013. The same was informed before the Ld. Court and Ld. Court was pleased to file the case vide order dated 18.09.14.
The OP without any valid reason had kept the domestic premises of the Complainant disconnected. It is needless to mention that electric supply is very much necessity in day to day work and in all activities.
The OPs without assigning any kind of valid reason had denied to meet the inexpedience of the Complainant and is in a motive to somehow deceit the Complainant.
The Complainant approached the OPs for proper redress and prayed for the proper remedy. But instead the OPs showed inattention towards the Complainant and thus misbehaved with the Complainant.
Finding no other alternatives the Complainant filed this case for proper redress against the OPs and praying for directing the OPs to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- for mental agony and harassment and praying for directing the OPs to pay all costs of the case to the Complainants.
Ld. Advocate for the OP submits before this District Commission that the specific case of the OPs is that the Complainant asked the OP to provide new electric connection at 37 B.B. Sen Road, PS-Berhampore. But a huge outstanding amounting to Rs. 1,10,190/- and Rs/ 40,344/- against the Consumer Id No. 313017235 and 313146998 respectively were lying dues in the same holding. So, new connection cannot be effected before payment of the outstanding dues in the above mentioned holding as per sub section 3.4.2 of regulation No. 36 made by WBERC dated 12.09.2007. So as per ruled the Complainant is required to pay all outstanding dues to the licensee in respect of the abovementioned service connections.
It is the further case of the OP that the death of Samir Kumar Sen during the pendency of IE Case No. 123/2012 do not prove that the OP is not entitled to get the outstanding dues.
The submission made by the Ld. Advocate for the OP is not challenged. On the contrary we are of the view that the submissions made by the Ld. Advocate of the OP has sufficient merit to be accepted. Such being the position, the instant case is liable to be dismissed.
Reasons for delay
The Case was filed on 28.11.18 and admitted on 06.12.18. 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/181/2018 be and the same is dismissed on merit against the OPs without costs.
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 Member President.
