IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No.CC/100/2017
Date of Filing: 29.06.17 Date of Final Order: 26.12.18
Complainant: Raisa Metal
Prop. Rabiul Islam
S/O Ehia Hossain
Vill-Haipatganj Lalbagh
PO&PS-Murshidabad, Dist-Murshidabad
Pin-742149
-Vs-
Opposite Party: Regional Manager
Murshidabad Region, WBSEDCL
5, Church Road
Administrative Building
PO&PS-Berhampore, Dist-Murshidabad
Pin-742101
Agent/Advocate for the Complainant : Sri.Subhanjan Sengupta
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party : Sri.Siddhartha Sankar Dhar
Present: Sri Asish Kumar Senapati………………….......President.
Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………..Member.
FINAL ORDER
Asish Kumar Senapati, Presiding Member.
This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.
One Raisa Metal Prop. Rabiul Islam (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against the Regional Manager, Murshidabad Region, WBSEDCL (here in after referred to as the OP) praying for compensation, alleging deficiency in service.
The brief fact of this case is as follows:
The Complainant is a permanent resident of Haipatganj Lalbagh and he is the Proprietor of Raisa Metal and it is . his only livelihood. That the Complainant is a consumer under the OP vide Consumer ID 950000803 and he took the service connection on deposit of service connection charge amounting Rs.2,07,523/- and security deposit of Rs.2,86,084/-. The service connection was disconnected on prayer of the Complainant but the OP is reluctant to refund the security deposit in spite of repeated requests. The OP has deficiency in service. Hence, the Complainant has filed this case praying for a direction upon the OP for making payment on Rs.2,86,084/- as security deposit with interest and Rs.1,00,000/- towards harassment and mental agony.
The OP contested the case by filing written version on 31.01.18, contending, that the case is not maintainable as the Complainant is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act,1986. That the case is not maintainable as this Forum has no jurisdiction to deal with this case. The OP has denied the allegation of refusal of refunding the security deposit to the Complainant. The petitioner had industrial connection and the electricity was used for the factory owned by the Complainant and the factory manufactured wire and number of labours and employees were attached with the factory. So, the factory cannot be the only livelihood for the petitioner. The OP disconnected this electricity connection on 12.03.16 in terms of prayer of the Complainant and the meter was removed on 20.09.16. The meter was leveled, packed and sealed at the spot immediately after the removal of the said meter with joint signatures of the Complainant and the representative of the OP and the meter is in the custody of the OP in leveled, packed and sealed condition. But the final energy bill could not be raised due to non-availability of final reading. The petitioner was requested again and again to be present at the time of testing of the meter for raising the final bill but the Complainant did not turn up in spite of repeated reminders. The final bill cannot be prepared due to non co-operation of the Complainant and there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
On the basis of the above versions following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case :
Points for decision
- Is the Complainant consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?
- Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the OP, as alleged ?
- Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?
Point No.1
The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the Complainant is a consumer as he hired the services of the OP.
In reply, the Ld. Advocate for the OP submits that the Complainant is not consumer in view of section 2 (I) (d) (ii) of the C.P. Act,1986. It is urged that the Complainant used electricity for commercial purposes in his factory. He argues that the Complainant has asserted that Raisa Metal is his only livelihood though there were a number of labours attached to the said factory. It is argued that it has not even asserted by the Complainant that he used electricity for commercial purposes and the services availed by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. It is urged that the Complainant has failed to establish that he is a consumer in view of section 2( I) (d) (ii) of the C.P. Act,1986.
Admittedly, the Complainant hired services of the OP for electricity connection in his factory,namely, Raisa Metal and the electricity was used for commercial purposes. The Complainant stated that Raisa Metal is his only livelihood but it has not been stated that the services availed by him was exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. The Complainant has omitted the terms
‘ by means of self-employment’ in his written complaint. Therefore, it can be safely said that the Complainant availed the services of the OP for commercial purposes which is not excluded in section 2( I )(d )(ii) of the C.P. Act,1986. Therefore, it is held that the Complainant is not a consumer in terms of section 2( I)( d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986.
Point No.2
The Complainant submits that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and the claimed amount is also within pecuniary limit of the District Forum.
On a careful consideration over the materials on record, we find that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and this Forum has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Both the points are thus disposed of.
Point Nos. 3&4
The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the OP is reluctant to refund security deposit and there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP. It is argued that the Complainant is entitled to get refund of security deposit along with interest and compensation for harassment and mental agony.
In reply, the Ld. Advocate for the OP submits that the Complainant is not a consumer and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. It is argued that the OP is ready and willing to refund security deposit after adjustment, if any. He argues that the Complainant has been absenting himself on different dates for testing of energy meter in spite of repeated notices served upon him by the Divisional Engineer of the WBSEDCL, Murshidabad Region. He submits that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
We have gone through the complaint, written version, evidence of the Complainant and xerox copies of documents filed by both parties. It appears from the documents that the Complainant did not turn up on the dates fixed by the OP for testing of energy meter in spite of repeated notices. It is the version of the Ld. Advocate for the OP that the OP is ready and willing to refund the security deposit after adjustment of pending bill, if any. We do not find any reason to go into the merit of the point Nos. 3&4 as the Complainant has failed to establish that he is a consumer in terms of section 2 (I)( d(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986. We think that the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief in this case.
Reasons for delay
The Case was filed on 29.06.17 and admitted on 10.07.17. This Forum 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/100/2017 be and the same is hereby dismissed on contest against the O.P. without cost.
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.
