C.F. CASE No. : CC/2012/90
COMPLAINANT : Karim Mondal@ Kasem Ali Mondal
S/o Late Swarup Mondal
Vill. & P.O. Saligram,
P.S. Nakashipara, Dist. Nadia
OPPOSITE PARTY/OP : Station Manager,
Bethuadahari Group Electric Supply,
W.B.S.E.D.C.L. of Bethuadahari
P.S. Nakashipara, Dist. Nadia
PRESENT : SHRI PRADIP KUMAR BANDYOPADHYAY, PRESIDENT
: SHRI SHYAMLAL SUKUL, MEMBER
: SMT REETA ROYCHAUDHURY MALAKAR, MEMBER
DATE OF DELIVERY
OF JUDGMENT : 25th November, 2013
: J U D G M E N T :
This is a case of under Section 12 of the CP Act. The facts of the case to put, in a nutshell, are as below:-
The complainant, Karim Mondal is a bonafide customer of W.B.S.E.D.C.L., Bethuadahari Group Electric Supply, Bethuadahari having his service connection No. SLG /4436/STW and consumer No. S052130 since 2006. The complainant is an agriculturist and the OP is the Station Manager of the above noted Ltd. Company.
The complaint was lodged on 06.12.12 because the OP claimed for Rs. 16,232/- from the consumer of 5872 units. The bill was exhibitant.
On inspection, there was found that there was a fault on the part of the W.B.S.E.D.C.L. Hence, compensation has been made to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- and cost of Rs. 5,000/-.
The OP contested the case by filing written objection admitting the defective meter reading and the matter has been settled amicably by the parties. But the complainant suffered a loss due to disconnection of electricity in the field of agriculture. Hence the case.
POINTS FOR DECISION
- Point No. 1: Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the OP?
- Point No.2: Is the complainant entitled to get any compensation?
REASONED DECISION
Both the points are taken up together for discussion, for brevity and convenience.
We have given patient hearing to ld. Advocate for both sides. Perused the affidavit on record. Another affidavit claiming compensation of Rs. 10,000/- has been filed but there is no break up showing how such amount of Rs. 10,000/- was calculated in support of the OP’s contention that he is entitled to get compensation. The affidavit dtd. 08.11.13 only mentions that Rs.10,000/- was spent by way of ploughing and purchasing seeds etc. for cultivation which went astray due to non-supply of electricity resulting in nonrunning and irrigating pump to the agriculture field.
Perused the LR document but it had not been mentioned in the affidavit that plot No. 1877 & 1878 or 1890, 1892 and 1927 was affected due to disruption of electricity. The land measures 1.49 acre. But that as it may, no specific cultivation or deposition of the eye witness is forthcoming from neighbour. However, the justice demands that the complainant should be compensated as there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hold that there was deficiency in service as contemplated under Section 2(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1987. Both the points are disposed of in favour of the complainant as connection has been given and disputed amount has been sorted out. Compensation and the cost shall be the only remedies in the instant case. Both the points are disposed of with the observation that the petitioner is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 1000/- by the OP.
Hence,
Ordered,
That the case, CC/2012/90 be and the same is decreed on contest. The petitioner is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 1000/- from the OP (Debabrata Sen, S/o Subhas Chandra Sen). The Station Manager, Bethuadahari Group Electric Supply, Nadia shall arrange payment of Rs. 1000/- as compensation to the complainant and cost of Rs.500/- within one month from the date of this order failing which the complainant at liberty to execute the decree and the decretal amount shall carry interest @ 5% per annum since this date till the date of realization of the full amount.
Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.
