Date of Filing             :    20 January, 2021.

Date of Final Order :    20 February, 2024.

Mr.  Dhiraj Kumar Dey,  Hon’ble Member.

            This case arises when Sri Chandu Goswami, hereinafter called the Complainant, filed a complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (the Act) against the Station Manager, Udaynarayanpur CCC of WBSEDCL, hereinafter called the Opposite Party or OP, alleging deficiency in service occurred from the part of the OP arising out of non-compliance of his application for shifting his electric meter despite depositing the necessary amount for such shifting.

            The contention of the complainant, as stated in the complaint petition supported by annexed documents, is that, in short, that the complainant, who was enjoying the electric connection from the OP in his premises at Dag No. 795 of Mouza Jangalpara, Udaynarayanpur, Howrah.  His Electric Meter was installed in the place of other co-owners of the same Dag No. 795.  He wanted to shift his existing Meter to his own house at Dag No. 795 and for this reason he applied for shifting his Meter before the concerned authority, the OP herein above, who after receiving the application directed the complainant to deposit ₹200/- for inspection.  He deposited this amount and after receiving this amount the OP inspected the premises and after inspection directed the complainant to deposit further ₹800/-, totalling ₹1,000/-, for shifting charges.  He subsequently paid this amount also. But after receiving the shifting charge the OP allegedly failed to shift his Meter to his own house.  According to the complainant’s allegation, the OP withheld the shifting intentionally, illegally and trying to drag the matter with ill motive and harass the complainant and such an illegal act of the OP is nothing but an unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service on the part of the OP.  The complainant then filed this complaint petition before this Commission praying : (i) to direct the OP to shift the Electric Meter in his premises, (ii) to pay compensation of ₹5,000/- for his harassment and mental agony together with ₹5,000/- as litigation cost and any other relief or reliefs as under equity.

            Complainant filed copies of (i) the letter issued by the OP on 24/07/2019, (ii) the Money Receipt of cash payment of ₹200/-, (iii) the Quotation Report dated NIL issued by the OP, (iv) the Money Receipt for cash payment of ₹800/- (v) the report in respect of the premises issued by the BL&LRO, Udaynarayanpur and (vi) the Aadhaar Card of the complainant as annexure to the complaint petition.

            Notice was served upon the OP after admission to appear and contest the case by filing written version.  OP appeared before this Commission and prayed time for filing their written version though the complainant was absent and did not file any S/R.  However the OP could not file their written version despite repeated opportunities had been given and ultimately the case proceeded ex parte.  Thereafter OP appeared and filed their written version which was not accepted after hearing both sides. Complainant then filed his Evidence on Affidavit. OP then filed questionnaire which was not entertained. Ultimately argument of the complainant was heard in full and argument from the point of law was also heard from the OP.  Both the parties filed their respective Brief Notes on Argument.  We have now come to the position to deliver the Final Order in this case.  We have to decide whether the OP is deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant for which he is entitled to get relief as prayed for.

DECISION WITH REASONS

           1.    It is written in the complaint petition that the complainant was enjoining his electric connection through the Meter supplied by the OP and the said Meter was installed at the premises of other co-owners.  He was intending to shift his existing meter to his own premises for which he applied for shifting his Meter before the OP.  After obeying due formalities and by paying the requisite money he was expecting that the OP should shift his Meter to his desired place but that did not happen. It is the contention of the complainant that the OP intentionally and illegally delayed such shifting thereby by causing unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service from the part of the OP. 

            2.         Complainant has stated that he has followed all the formalities as per direction of the OP in order to get his Meter be shifted to his own premises. He deposited ₹200/- & ₹800/- on 26/07/2019 & on 02/08/2019 as shifting charge.  But when he has not received the desired service from the OP till filing this case what steps have been taken by him is not written in the statement of the complaint. 

            3.         The OP appeared on 30/04/2021 before the S/R has been filed by the complainant – actually the complainant had never filed any S/R – and prayed time for filing written version.  Several opportunities were given but the OP failed to file the written version.  On 12/04/2022 the OP filed written version which was not accepted as the case already proceeded ex parte.  Later, during argument OP filed their Brief Notes on argument and participated in the argument from the point of law.  Before filing written version the AE & SM, Udaynarayanpur CCC, i. e. the OP, sent a letter addressing the Hon’ble President of this Commission which was viewed seriously for which he had to appear personally before this Commission and apologised for his misconduct.  With this letter some documents had been filed from which we found that after receiving the amount demanded for shifting the Meter OP had tried to shift the Meter but local people objected for such shifting.  Then the OP sent a letter addressed to the complainant vide Memo No. UNPR/Consumer-Correspondence/E-33/768, dated 7/8/2019 stating that due to objection raised by local people/neighbour on the spot shifting could not be made and the complainant was requested to submit way leave permission to make sure that the work might be carried out without any hassle.  Similar letter was issued on 22/3/2021 after receiving notice from this Commission stating the similar fact. It is found that one Ms. Tanusri Goswami had allegedly received/seen the second letter on 23/03/2021.

            4.         We find no reason for the inaction from the part of the OP from 02/08/2019 till filing this complaint.  Though the OP tried to establish that they had communicated to the complainant about the objection of local people/neighbours on 7/8/2019 but no proof has been filed except copy of the letter dated 07/08/2019, but whether it is properly served to the complainant is not clear.  Electricity is a very essential basic need for every citizen and any person have the right to choose from where he will get the electricity.  Since the Licensee/electricity supplier, here the OP, has taken this responsibility for the shifting in a feasible condition, failure to fulfil their responsibility must be communicated in a proper manner so that the user must be aware for such inability.

                        Similarly, the complainant cannot avoid his responsibility after depositing the desired money for the shifting.  From 02/08/2019 till filing this case we have not found anything about what steps had been taken by the complainant during this period when he found that the OP have not shifted his Meter despite receiving requisite money.

            5.         In the BNA the OP relied upon the judgement reported in 1991(2) CLJ [Harendra Nath Ghosal -Vs.- Superfoam Pvt. Ltd.] regarding  service of summon.  We have gone through the observations made in the above-referred judgement.  We take note of the decision under the head ‘Held’ wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court said that:   

            “(b)  ……..  But so far as a limited company is concerned the service of summons has to be effected in terms of Sec. 51 of the Companies Act and in this case when admittedly there was no service of summon upon the registered office of the opposite party there was no valid service of summons.”  [Emphasis provided.]

            But in the instant case, despite non-filing S/R by the complainant, the OP appeared and prayed time for filing written version. So question of non-serving summons does not arise.  Moreover OP has not mentioned whether they have received the complaint petition and the annexed documents or not. As the complainant has not filed the S/R, we are in the dark in this matter.

            6.         During wrongful submission of personal letter on 30/04/2021, the AE & SM submitted some documents some of which have already been filed by the complainant.  In addition, he filed a letter allegedly communicated to the complainant on 07/08/2019 stating that as some of his neighbours objected for shifting the Meter he was requested to submit the way leave permission.  Another letter was issued to the complainant on 23/03/2021 just after receiving the notice from this Commission stating that they again tried to shift the Meter but again his neighbours objected for shifting for which way leave permission was again sought for.  On the same date the OP allegedly lodged a GDE before the Udaynarayanpur Police Station complaining that one Sri Shankar Adhikari, C/O Chandi Charan Adhikari, of the same village raised objection for the shifting.

            7.         In the BNA the OP stated that the complainant has stated in the complaint that he was enjoying his electricity through his Meter which was installed in the place of other co-sharers but he did not mention the names of these co-sharers nor did he mention their names in the Cause Title of the instant complaint for which this case is bad in law due to suppression of facts and non-joinder of necessary parties. OP mentioned in the BNA that their effort for shifting the Meter could not be complied as local people had raised objection on spot.  This incident was communicated to the complainant but his response was not received. Their subsequent effort also became fruitless as one Sri Shankar Adhikary objected on the spot which was informed to the local police station through a GDE.

            All the above noted facts tell us that the complainant failed to receive his Meter in his desired place despite depositing the requisite money and the OP failed to shift the Meter in question.  The OP failed to inform the complainant properly and effectively about the failed effort for such shifting and the complainant failed to convince us that he made frequent attempts for the shifting of the Meter.  So, we think, there is a deficiency form both the parties which required to be compensated.  The OP is liable to shift the Meter in question at the desired place of the complainant as they have already assessed the situation. The OP themselves declared that they are the public utility concern. So, as per the submission of the OP, if local people/neighbours are objecting the shifting, then police help must be sought for so that the complainant can get his electric connection through the Meter installed at the desired place.

            Hence, it is

ORDERED

That the Complaint Case No. CC/20/2021 be and the same is allowed ex parte against the Opposite Party.

            The Opposite Party is directed to shift the Electric Meter at the desired place of the complainant within 45 days from receiving this order.  The Officer-In-Charge, Udaynarayanpur Police Station, is directed to help in this shifting by deploying his police personnel.  The Opposite Party will bear the cost of deployment of police personnel. The Opposite Party is also directed to pay ₹3,000/- to the complainant as litigation cost within the above-mentioned time period.

            If the Opposite Party fails to comply with the above directives within this stipulated time period then a sum of ₹500/- per day will be imposed on them to pay to the complainant with effect from the date of this order till full and final compliance.

            Let a copy of this order be issued to both the parties free of cost.                                 

Dictated and corrected by me

            Member.