West Bengal

South 24 Parganas

CC/257/2015

Sri Bimalendu Pal S/O- Late Rajani Kanta Pal. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Station Manager and authorised person of W.B.S.E.D.C.L.Baruipur - Opp.Party(s)

13 Jun 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPLUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 0144

 

      C.C. CASE NO. _257_ OF ___2015__

 

DATE OF FILING : 5.6.2015                       DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT:  13.6.2016__

 

Present                        :   President       :   Udayan Mukhopadhyay

 

                                        Member(s)    :    Sharmi Basu & Subrata Sarker

                                                                             

COMPLAINANT             : SWri Bimalendu Pal,s/o late Rajani Kanta Pal of Dutta Para, P.O & P.S Baruipur, Dist. South 24-Parganas, partner of M/s Urmila Cycle Mart, Premises no.4, Kulpi Road, Ward No.-3, Baruipur Municipality.

 

-VERSUS  -

 

O.P/O.Ps                            :  Station Manager and Authorised person of W.B.S.E.D.C.L, Baruipur, C.C.C.

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

                                                            J  U  D  G  E  M  E  N  T

 

Sri Udayan Mukhopadhyay, President          

The short case of the complainant is that  he has applied for a new connection to the O.P Station manager of WBSEDCL , Baruipur, a Xerox copy of the same is annexed with the application. Thereafter , on receipt of the quotation the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.614/- as security deposit and a further sum of Rs.400/- for service connection which are annexed herewith. Bu the service connection of the said premises has not yet been connected by the competent authority. The complainant has claimed that he is unable to run the repairing job and day by day he had to pay idle labour charges. He accordingly prays for financial loss of Rs.1,20,000/- which will be recovered from the O.P as compensation .

The O.P WBSEDCL contested the case by filing written version. It is the postivie case of the O.P tjhat at the time of inspection it was detected that another meter was running in the selfsame premises in the name of M/s Urmila Cycle Mart Vide Consumer ID no. 113008206 in the name of Kamalendu Pal. This complainant is enjoying electricity from the said meter. It has further stated that second service connection in the same premises is not allowed until and unless the previous service connection is permanently disconnected and all outstanding dues are cleared off. It has further stated that when the complainant applied for permanent disconnection of the old meter in the name of Kamalendu Pal, Rs.40/- was deposited for permanent disconnection but during removal of the existing meter strong objection was raised by the landlord Kishore Nag Chowdhury on 22.11.2014 and one objection letter was also issued by the said land owner that Bimalendu Pal was not the tenant and he had strong objection regarding removal of old meter and effecting of new meter. Again on 28.11.2014 Bimalendu Pal applied for change of name from Kamalendu Pal to his own name in plain paper but not in prescribed format of WBSEDCL and also did not comply any formalities for change of tenancy and as a result the change of name could not take place. Apart from that this O.P has denied all the allegations leveled against them. It has further stated that the existing connection lying in the name of Kamalendu pal can only be changed in the name of Bimalendu Pal after verifying the consent letter from Kamalendu Pal. Apart from that , it has been submitted by the O.P that complainant wants to run business in the name and style of Cycle Sale and repairing job which is a profit motive and commercial gain. So, it cannot be considered by this Forum and the same is not maintainable. The O.P further stated that complainant has filed to arrange free way leave as necessary under Regulation no.46/WBERC 3.2.1 ( c ) , that is why complaint case should be dismissed.

Points for decision in this case is whether there is any  deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.

                                                            Decision with reasons

At the very outset it must be stated that from the documents we find that complainant Bimalendu Pal is paying Tax of M/s Urmila Cycle Mart. Secondly from the certificate isused by the Baruipur Municipality we find that Bimalendu pal is a Proprietor/Partner of M/s Urmila Cycle Mart from premises no.4, Kulpi Road, Kolkata -144. But from the copy of the rent receipt it is seen that Kamalendu Pal is a tenant in the said Cycle Shop. The registration certificate also indicates that the same is in the name of M/s Urmila Cycle Mart which is a shop. It is true that there is no scrap of paer annexed with the complaint that his brother Kamalendu Pal in whose name electric meter is running ,gave any consent to change the name of the meter. Moreover, the disconnection charges for the said meter was deposited by Bimalendu Pal not Kamalendu Pal and until and unless the original consumer filed the disconnection charges , the O.P cannot disconnect the same permanently.

Now question is of providing second new meter. It is well known to us that in the same premises the second meter cannot be provided until and unless the complainant is able to prove that although they are living in the same premises but they have separated amicably or in accordance with Law and their units have already been separated. In find, admittedly Kamalendu Pal, is a tenant and it is also well known to us that even a trespasser can get electric connection until and unless he is being evicted by due process of Law. So, the landlord’s consent should not stand on the way of providing new electric connection. But here in the instant case circumstances is different. If the complainant wanted to change the name of the consumer then consent of the previous consumer Kamalendu Pal is required but complainant did not file the same. Secondly, complainant failed to provide or whisper a single statement in his written complaint that Cycle business is only livelihood of the complainant ,that is why the O.P rightly observed that the same is a profit motive.  So, we find considering all pros and cons that it is a sorry state of affairs to dismiss the complaint case due to the laches of the complainant ,wherein the service provider ,O.P, has no fault at all.

Hence,

                                                            It is ordered

That the application under section 12 of the C.P Act, 1986 is dismissed in light of the observation made in above but in the sorry state of affairs without any cost and complainant is at liberty to file fresh complaint case after observing all formalities made in above.

Let a plain copy of this order be served upon the O.Ps and a copy be handed over to the complainant free of cost.

 

Member                                               Member                                                                       President

 

Dictated and corrected by me

 

 

 

                        President

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The judgment in separate sheet is ready and is delivered in open Forum. As it is ,

 

 

                                                            It is ordered

That the application under section 12 of the C.P Act, 1986 is dismissed in light of the observation made in above but in the sorry state of affairs without any cost and complainant is at liberty to file fresh complaint case after observing all formalities made in above.

Let a plain copy of this order be served upon the O.Ps and a copy be handed over to the complainant free of cost.

 

Member                                               Member                                                                       President