MRS.RAJASHREE AGARWALLA,MEMBER:-
Deficiency in service in respect of not providing new electricity connection are the allegation arrayed against Ops.
2. Complaint in brief reveals that to get a new electric connection over Plot No.-305,Khata No.-80/14 of Mouza- Barbar. Complainant requested the Ops for new connection and ready to submit required documents, but Ops are not listening to the complaint. It is further stated that she has no liability and there is no alternative way to avail the new connection except approaching this Forum. Hence, prayed this Forum for a direction to Ops to provide new Service connection within a stipulated period. Complainant to substantiate her case files attested photocopy of Voter I.Card and attested photocopy of Khtain No.80/14.
3. Being noticed Ops appeared through their Ld. Counsel and filed joint w/s denying the allegations and submitting the facts it is stated that Complainant was a beneficiary of Consumer No.-02170479 which stands in the name of Bharat Nayak. It is averred that a huge arrear outstanding amount Rs.1,36,089.69 is pending against Consumer Bharat Nayak for which the power supply was disconnected by Junior Manager in the month of January. It is further averred that a FIR has been registered against complaint’s husband Nimai Nayak and Bharat Nayak U/S 379 I.P.C and at present the complainant is availing power supply by taking process. It is also averred that as per Rule 10(1) of the O.E.R.C. Distribution(condition of Supply) Code-2004 new service connection cannot be provided to the complainants under the above circumstances the Ops have not committed any deficiency in service and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Ops filed attested copy of statement of Account of Bharat Nayak bearing consumer A/C No.-02170479.
4. Heard, the by Ld. Counsels for the parties and perused the documents filed into the dispute. In the complaint it is alleged that Ops are not providing new electric connection to Plot No.-305, Khata No.-80/14 of Mouza- Babar where the complainant resides. Except the filing of copy of Khatian (ROR) and Voter I.card nothing is produced that the complainant has paid any amount by way of ‘Consideration’ to the Ops to avail the new Service connection. On the other hand Ops challenged the maintainability of the complaint and submitted that complainant is a beneficiary of consumer Bharat Nayak against which a huge arrear outstanding is pending and a F.I.R has been registered against the complainant for ‘theft energy’.
Before the discussing the factual and legal aspect of the dispute it is to be kept in the mind that whether the present complainant can be treated as ‘consumer’ as defined in the C.P.Act,1986? Whether her grievance can be redressed by the Fora?
Defyning the word consumer, Sec2(d)(ii) of the C.P.Act defines that consumer means any person who “hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or premised xxxxx”. In the instant dispute not a single scrap paper is produced on behalf of the complainant that she has paid any consideration to the Ops to avail the new Service connection, only she has made a request which was turned down by the Ops for different reasons. So in the absence of any payment of ‘Consideration’ there as no relationship exist between complainant and Ops as ‘Consumer’ and service provider. When complainant is not a consumer, her grievance can’t be adjudicated by this Forum.
Accordingly the complaint is dismissed on the ground of maintainability without any cost.
Pronounced in the open Court, this the 13th Day of January,2017.
