West Bengal

Birbhum

CC/12/22

Sk. Mofijul Hossain, S/o Sk. Abdul Hannon - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shantiniketan Gr. E/Supply, - Opp.Party(s)

Nurul Alam

11 Mar 2016

ORDER

The complainant case, in brief, is that the complainant deposited Rs. 2000 on 12.08.2002 to the O.P, Station Manager, WBSEDCL, Santiniketan Gr. E/Supply, Santiniketan, Bolpur, Birbhum for electric connection for his grill factory. But the O.P did not affect the same. The complainant also sent a reminder for that connection on 14.04.2005. Thereafter the complainant again applied with all necessary documents on 17.11.2013 and deposited application fees being application No. 5000001031 and earnest money. But a criminal case U/s 135 (1) of the Electricity Act, 2003 was made in the name of the complainant which was disposed on 21.07.2011 by awarding him punishment of one month simple imprisonment. The complainant also filed an application U/s 6 (1) of RTI Act but the informations sought for were not supplied by the O.P and the O.P did not affect the electric connection till now. There has been deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. Hence, this case. The complainant prayed for reliefs as per the complaint.

The O.P has contested the case by filing written version and has denied all the allegation made in the petition of complaint. The O.P has stated that a welding machine was running by the complainant by direct hooking from LT overhead line without taking permission from WBSEDCL and upon the spot visit some articles were seized and a case U/s135(1)(a)(b) of the Electricity Act 2003 was filed in the name of the complainant before the Panuri P.S. being case No. 51/2011 dated 09.06.2011. A Provisional bill was also raised in that matter but the complainant did not pay the same, for which he is not entitled to get any relief under the law. The O.P also stated that as per the ruling of the Apex Court regarding the theft of electricity the Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this case and the case is not maintainable at the Forum. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P and the case be dismissed.

The complainant filed evidence on affidavits and some documents. The O.P has not adduced any evidence. Ld. Advocate for the O.P filed written argument. No written argument has been filed on the part of the complainant’s Advocate.

We have heard the Advocate of both side and perused the complaint and the documents on record carefully.

DECISION WITH REASONS

In the petition of complaint the complainant claimed that he had deposited Rs. 2000 on 12.08.2002 before the O.P for the electric connection for his grill factory and the O.P did not affect the same. But in the written version and in letter dated 27.02.2012 issued by the O.P in reply of the complainant’s queries under RTI Act, the O.P has denied about such deposition. The complainant also not produced any such documents before this Forum in support of his claim. So, the complainant is unable to prove regarding the deposition of Rs. 2000 before the O.P. on 12.08.2002.

Moreover, it appears from the record that the instant case was dismissed by this Forum vide order dated 10.10.2012 on the ground that the complainant applied for electric connection for his grill factory for commercial purpose. So the case is not maintainable under C.P Act, 1986. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with that order passed by this Forum the complainant has preferred an appeal before Hon’ble State Commission and Hon’ble State Commission by the order dated 30.05.2014 in S.C Case No. –FA/565/2013 had allowed the appeal and set aside the order of this Forum dated 10.10.2012. Hon’ble State Commission observed that there was no viable material on record to hold that the complainant applied for electric connection for commercial purpose, not as a means for his livelihood. The Hon’ble State Commission also concluded that after getting the evidence of the parties upon a full-fledged hearing any such pronouncement can or required to be made. Accordingly, the case is reopened on 23.07.2014 and subsequently hearing arose. But at the time of trial the complainant neither submitted the answer of the questionnaire raised by the O.P against the evidence in chief and the documents filed by the complainant nor he produced any such viable documents before this Forum to prove that he had applied for electric connection for his grill factory not for commercial purposes but for his livelihood. The complainant submitted an acknowledgement Part-1 issued by Manager, District Industries Centre according to which the complainant’s grill factory was categorized as micro enterprises. But that document does not prove that the complainant running his grill factory for self-employment purpose. So the complainant is unable to prove that the electric connection sought for from the O.P for his grill factory is not for commercial purposes but for earning his livelihood by means of self-employment.

Besides it is admitted that the complainant again applied for electric connection being application No. 5000001031 dated 06.02.2012 and evidently it is clear that the complainant deposited application fees of Rs. 5/- vide money receipt Sl. No. A/7345258 and earnest money of Rs. 200 vide money receipt Sl. No. A/7345631. Yet the O.P did not affect the electric connection till now. In contention the O.P stated that a theft case was filed in the name of the complainant for direct hooking from LT Overhead Line to running his welding machine without taking permission from WBSEDCL. The complainant also admitted the fact and submitted an order passed by special court (electricity act) Suri Birbhum which show that the case was condoned on 21.07.2011 by awarding the punishment of one month simple imprisonment to the complainant. At the time of argument the O.P stated that a provisional bill of Rs. 59725 was raised from that case but the complainant did not pay that due bill to WBSEDCL and as the due bill has not been paid the new application dated 17.11.2013 has not been considered and no quotation has been issued. The report (post inspection requirement fulfillment) dated 13.02.2012 issued by the O.P against the application of the complainant vide No. 5000001031 and the letter dated 27.02.2012 issued against the queries of the complainant under RTI Act show that the O.P had informed the complainant regarding that due bill. But the complainant did not pay that due bill till now and without paying that due bill the complainant is not entitled for new connection in the eyes of law. So, the Forum has not find any deficiency in service on behalf of the O.P for not effecting the electric connection for the grill factory of the complainant.  In the result the instant case fails.

Proper fees have been paid.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

that C.F case No. 22/2012 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the O.P. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case no order is passed as to cost.

Copy of this order be supplied to the parties each free of cost.