West Bengal

Dakshin Dinajpur

CC/48/2005

Sanjit Ruhidas - Complainant(s)

Versus

Executive Officer Panchayat Samity, Balurghat P.O. - Balurghat Dist. - Dakshin Dinajpur ( Gopal bat - Opp.Party(s)

15 Dec 2006

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
Dakshin Dinajpur, Balurghat, West Bengal
Old Sub jail Market Complex, 2nd Floor, P.O. Balurghat, Dist. Dakshin Dinajpur Pin-733101
 
Complaint Case No. CC/48/2005
 
1. Sanjit Ruhidas
Vill. and P.O. - Gopal bati, P.S. - Balurghat Dist. - Dakshin Dinajpur
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Executive Officer Panchayat Samity, Balurghat P.O. - Balurghat Dist. - Dakshin Dinajpur ( Gopal bati STW Cluster )
Executive Officer Panchayat Samity, Balurghat P.O. - Balurghat Dist. - Dakshin Dinajpur ( Gopal bati STW Cluster )
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
Dated : 15 Dec 2006
Final Order / Judgement

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum

 

Surya Sen Sarani Municipal Building, 1st Floor, Balurghat Dakshin Dinajpur Pin - 733101.

Telefax: 03522-270013

============================================================================================

                       

Consumer Complain No.:48/05

 

 

            Complainant                            Vs        Opposite Party / Parties

 

 

  1. Sanjit Ruhidas                                     (1) Executive Officer – Panchayat Samity, Balurghat
  2. Shyamal Ruhidas                                     Po: Balurghat Dist : Dakshin Dinajpur
  3. Netai Ruhidas
  4. Santosh Ruhidas                                 (2) Station Manager – Balurghat Gr. Electric supply
  5. Amal Ruhidas                                          W. B. S. E. B. Balurghat, Dakshin Dinajpur.
  6. Biplab Ruhidas

 

 

 Order No.: 10

 Dt. 15.12.2006

 

 

Present         (1) Sri S. Bhattacharyya                     President

                        (2) Sri S. K. Ghosh                             Member

 

 

 

            This is to consider of petition of complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, filed by the complainants against the OPs claiming connection of electricity for irrigation purpose.

 

            Facts of the case, in short, is that the complainants are little farmers who used to consume electricity for irrigation of their lands through Executive Officer Panchayat Samity, Balurghat. They got the supply of electricity during the year 2002 but they could not consume any electricity as the Motor supplied by the Agri Irrigation Department was of high power. Subsequently, the said motor was stolen away by unknown miscreant. Meanwhile W.B.S.E.B Balurghat issued a bill of Rs.71,046/- for consumption of electricity for the year 2002-2003. For non-payment of such amount of bill of W.B.S.E.B (OP No.2) also disconnected the supply of electricity. Hence the complainants are praying for reconnection of the supply of electricity. OP No.2 of W.B.S.E.B Balurghat entered appearance by filing vokalatnama but did not file any written version.

 

            Point for consideration in this case is whether the complainants are entitled to get relief for as prayed for :-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                                                                                    Contd. Page 2

 - :  2 : -

 

Decision with reasons :

 

            It appears that from the petition of complaint and documents filed that the complainants are all little farmers who used to run their electrical Motor for the purpose of irrigation of their lands through OP No.1 Executive Officer, Panchayat Samity, Balurghat. In fact, the Executive Officer Panchayat Samity (OP No.2) is the consumer as per electric bill, but the said officer has not been made any complain in this case.

 

            Further, complainants could not also produce any documents that they are users of electric supply bearing Consumer No. S011995, which stands in the name of Executive Officer, Panchayat Samity, Balurghat.

 

            Therefore, the complainants not being consumers within the meaning of CP Act, are not entitled to get any relief in this case.

 

            Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed on contest without cost.

 

            The complaint could not be disposed of within specified period of 90 days, as there was no Member till September 2006.

 

 

 

 

           

 

           

 

 

                                                                                                               By Order of the Forum

 

             I agree,

           

 

     ……………………………………..                                                 ………………………………….

                   Member                                                                                        President

 District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum                         District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum

            Dakshin Dinajpur at Balurghat                                                       Dakshin Dinajpur at Balurghat

 

 

 

                                                                                                                            

                                                                                             

                                                                                                              

 

 

 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.