C.F. CASE No.                      :            CC/2012/89

COMPLAINANT                  :           Izamuddin Sk.

                                    S/o Late Ibrahim Sk.

                                    Vill. Sahapur, P.O. Bhurulia,

                                    P.S. Kaliganj,

                                    Dist. Nadia, PIN - 741137

• Vs  –

OPPOSITE PARTIES/OPs    : 1)    Station Manager,

                                    Debagram Group Electricity Supply Office,

                                    W.B.S.E.D.C.L.

                                    Vill + P.O. Debagram, P.S. Kaliganj,

                                    Dist. Nadia, PIN – 741137

                                         2)    Divisional Manager,

                                    Tehatta Division,

                                    W.B.S.E.D.C.L.

                                    Vill. + P.O. & P.S. Tehatta,

                                    Dist. Nadia

PRESENT                : SHRI PRADIP KUMAR BANDYOPADHYAY, PRESIDENT

   : SMT REETA ROYCHAUDHURY MALAKAR, MEMBER

                 : SHRI SHYAMAL KUMAR GHOSH, MEMBER

DATE OF DELIVERY                                             

OF  JUDGMENT                         :    08^th  July, 2014

:    J U D G M E N T    :

This is the case under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.  The facts of the case to put in a nutshell, are as below:-

The complainant, Izamuddin lodged the complaint against the Debagram Group Electric Supply Office and Divisional Manager, Tehatta Division.  The consumer code of the complainant is Normal-TOD.   His consumer I.D. is 334001292.  The complainant uses electricity for his agricultural purpose.  He has taken connection from 25 KVA, the transformer of agricultural field of Sahapur.  He used to pay all bills as per consumption.  On 14.12.11 officials of Debagram Electric Supply transferred old 25 KVA transformer to a new one.  The complainant complained about woozing oil from the transformer, but it was not set at right.  On 16.06.12 ACM visited the spot for taking necessary steps when the paddy crops began to dry up due to want of water and due to lack of electric connection.  No water could be given to the plants and 14.07.12 the complainant submitted written applications at the office of the respondent No. 1 for necessary steps, but to no effect.  On 13.08.12 another application was filed and thereafter, lawyer’s notice was given to the opposite party on 12.09.12 and 13.09.12.   The complainant has given the Khatian numbers and Plot numbers affected for nonsupply of electricity.    

The complainant has prayed for compensation for harassment, loss of paddy etc. to the tune of 2,50,000/-.  Again he claimed Rs. 1,20,000/- for loss of paddy, Rs.80,000/- for loss of straw, Rs. 50,000/- for harassment and mental agony.  An alternative enquiry for ascertain damage has also been sought for.

Written statement was filed by OP No. 1 on 15.01.2014.  The brief facts of written statement of OP No. 1 are as below:-

The case is not maintainable as is barred by principle of waiver and estopple.  The claimant has no locus standi to initiate action.  The prayers of the complainant are vague.    There was negligence on the part of the complainant.  It is noticed that other consumers are using electricity for 25 KVA transformer from 14.12.2011 onwards without any complaint.  Hence, the 25 KVA transformer was okay. 

The case is false and harassing on baseless facts.  Thus OP prays for dismissal of the case.

From the pleadings of the parties following points are framed for decision:-

POINTS FOR DECESION

1. Point No. 1:   Is the case maintainable?
2. Point No. 2:   Is the complainant a consumer?
3. Point No. 3:   Was there any proved deficiency in service?
4. Point No. 4:   What relief the complaint is entitled to get?

REASOND DECISIONS

            For the sake of brevity and convenience all the points are taken up together for discussion.

            Maintainability of the case was challenged with reference to 1997 (1) CHN (SC) 50 wherein it was held that ombudsmen may be approached by the complaint and not Consumer Forum.   It is instant case the complainant failed to establish his case for appointment of an inspector.  In the instant case the complainant did not avail of the statutory remedy provided by Sub Section (4)(6) of S. 26 of Electricity.  We have appreciated the evidence of PW1 filed on 05.02.14 coupled with interrogatories filed on 06.03.14 and reply thereto filed on 05.03.2014.  The evidence is not at all consistent.  It is scattered and does not help us to ascertain any deficiency as alleged of the leaking transformer.

            No other local witness has come forward to support the case of the complainant. No document is forthcoming.  Hence, deficiency of any form could not be proved at all. 

            In view of the bills and affidavit of the complaint, we hold that the complaint is a consumer.

            We have meticulously gone through the annexed documents, affidavit, pleadings, interrogatories and reply in order to appreciate the case of the complainant.

Thus, in view of dearth of sufficient evidence and weak case of the complainant are hold that the merit of the case could not be proved. The case therefore fails.

Hence,

Ordered,

That, the complaint is dismissed on contest without cost.

Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.