IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC /32/2015.
Date of Filing: 03.03.2015 Date of Final Order: 14.03.2016
Complainant: Habibur Rahaman, S/O Late Hazi Adalat Sk. Vill Gosaidobe, P.O. Gokarna
Hall-Khosbaspur, P.S. Kandi, Dist. Murshidabad, Pin-742136
-Vs-
Opposite Party: 1. S.M, Gokarna Group Electric Supply, WBSEDCL, Gokarna, P.O. Gokarna,
Dist. Murshidabad. Pin 742136
2. D.E, WBSEDCL, P.O.& P.S. Berhampore, Murshidabad, Pin-742101
Present: Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya ………………….President.
Sri Samaresh Kumar Mitra ……………………..Member.
Smt. Pranati Ali ……….……………….……………. Member
FINAL ORDER
Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya, Presiding Member.
This case has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying for a direction upon the OP to reconnect the service connection of the complainant and compensation of Rs.10,000/-.
The complainant’s case, in brief, is that the complainant had an electric connection being an agricultural consumer for his submersible pump set about 2-3 years ago. Service connection of the complainant was disconnected as there was no season for cultivation. Now he wishes to cultivate his land. The OP asked the complainant to deposit a sum of Rs. 18,690/- which was due from the complainant. The complainant paid the said amount on 20.01.2015 the matter was informed to the OP and the OP has not yet reconnected the service line of the complainant. Lastly, on 28.2.15 the complainant requested the OP to give connection but the OP did not pay any heed to it. Then the complainant files this complaint. Hence, the instant complaint case.
The case of the OP is that the service Connection No. AI/2273(STW) stands in the name of the complainant. The OP sent a bill for Rs. 18689.88 for the month of November,2000 to September 2003. But the complainant did not pay the amount in due time. Accordingly, service connection was disconnected on 28.03.2003. As per rules that disconnection will deem to be permanently disconnected after six months. When a service line has been permanently disconnected then he would get a new connection only after payment of all the dues in the said holding. After completion of all formalities by the Consumer, he will get the connection. Accordingly, there is no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the OP. As such the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Considering the pleadings of both parties the following points have been framed for the disposal of the case.
Points for decision.
- Whether the complaint is maintainable in its present form and in law?
- Whether the complainant has cause of action to file the case?
- Whether the complainant is a consumer under the C. P. Act, 1986?
- Whether the complaint is barred by law of limitation?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for?
- To what other relief/relief the complainant may get?
Decision with Reasons.
Point Nos. 1 to 6.
All the points are taken up for the sake of convenience.
The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant for reconnection of his Electric line in his STW pump set. The complainant’s case is that his STW connection was disconnected as there was no season. Outstanding amount was paid. No connection was given.
On the other hand, the OP has raised objection that the outstanding dues was for the period for September, 2003 and the said dues were paid on 20.1.2015. As per rules the complainant being the defaulter of the electric bill for the period from September, 2003 his service connection was disconnected on 01.01.2004. When a service line has been permanently disconnected then he would get a new connection only after payment of all the dues in the said holding and completion of all other formalities.
Considering the submissions of the Ld. Lawyer for the complainant as to the sympathetic consideration to the agriculturist this service connection is essential and ultimately the complainant has paid his dues and prays for granting reconnection.
Considering the materials on record submitted including the evidence –on-affidavit of the complainant and the money receipt towards payment of outstanding dues on 20.1.15 for the period September, 2003 for Rs.18690/- , we do not find any sufficient cause for such long delay.
Be that as it may, it is clear that the complainant is a cultivator and prays for reconnection for the purpose of continuing his cultivation.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that OP-WBSEDCL should consider the prayer with liberal view. As such the OP should reconnect the service line of the complainant after taking only installation charges for reconnection and compliance with other formalities.
Considering the delay in payment of dues by the complainant, the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation from the OP.
On the basis of above discussions all the points are disposed of in favour of the complainant in part. As such the complainant is entitled to get reconnection after payment of installation charges and other mandatory charges for restoration of the connection.
Hence,
Ordered
that the Consumer Complaint No. 32/2015 be and the same is allowed on contest but in part without any order as to cost.
The OP is directed to restore connection at the agricultural premises of the complainant for STW Connection after taking installation charges and other mandatory charges, if any, for restoration of the service line within seven days after receiving the a foresaid charges and also to comply the order after taking charges from the complainant within three days from passing this order and in default the OP is to pay @ Rs.50/- per day’s delay as fine and the amount so accumulated shall be deposited in the Consumer Legal Fund Account.
Let a plain copy of this order be made available and be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties on contest in person, Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand under proper acknowledgment / be sent forthwith under ordinary post to the concerned parties as per rules, for information and necessary action.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
