The case of the complainant brief is that he applied for Electric line in the Submersible Pump before the opposite party. That the opposite party enquired into the matter and sent quotation to the complainant. That the complainant deposited the quotation amount of Rs. 2,329/- and Rs.2,000/- being money receipt No. 4254379 and 4254380 dated 12.05.2015 before the opposite party. That the opposite party effected e/line in the SMP of the complainant and he was consuming the e/line since the date of connection and he has been paying e/line bills so far sent by the opposite party as per law.
It is the further case of the complainant that there are 14 (fourteen) SMP consumers in the area of the complainant. That at the first there was a Transformer of 63KVA and another Transformer of 63KVS was installed with due permission of the opposite party in order to reduce load and as such 14 (fourteen) persons are divided into two group in two Transformer. That some persons having ill intention tried to make club/ cluster of 14 persons in a Transformer of 63KVA which beyond the capacity to supply e/line in 14 SMP of 5HP caliber. That the complainant protested and lodged complaint before the opposite party but they did not take any step preventive measure. That there after some miscreants disconnected the service connection in the SMP of the complainant and he reported the same before the opposite party for restoration of his e/line but the opposite party has not taken any step for the same.
Hence this case for passing order directing the opposite party to restore the electorate collection of the complainant, if needs a separate Transformer of 10KVA installed for the SMP of the complainant with other reliefs.
The O.P /WBSEDCL has contested the case by filing written version denying all material allegation of the complaint contending inter alia the complainant has no cause of action to bring the case and the case is not maintainable.
It is the specific case of the O.P that the complainant had 02(two) nos. of SMP connection. The two connections were given from two separate 63KVS DTRS with other consumers SMP connection. That one of the SMP connections of the complainant was disconnected by the SMP consumers as there may be dispute between the complainant and other consumer and as such there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. That getting information about disconnection of SMP from the complainant the O.P department/the opposite party advised the complainant would run his 2 nos. of SMP connection alternatively from one of the 63KVA DTR. That the opposite party called the complainant and other SMP consumers for mutual settlement of their local problem regarding the SMP connection.
Ultimately the O.P has prayed for dismissed of the case.
Point for determination.
- Whether the complainant is a consumer under Sec. 2(1) (d) (ii) of the C.P. Act.?
- Whether this Forum has jurisdiction to try this case?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any other relief or reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
During the trial the complainant Abdul Ahad has been examined as PW1 and has filed some documents.
He has been cross-examined by O.P by filing questionnaires.
The O.P has not adduced any oral or documentary evidence.
Heard arguments of both sides.
Point No.1:- Evidently the complainant applied for Electric line in the Submersible Pump before the opposite party. That the O.P enquired into the matter and sent quotation to the complainant. That the complainant deposited the quotation amount of Rs. 2,329/- and Rs.2,000/- being money receipt No. 4254379 and 4254380 dated 12.05.2015 before the O.P.
So, in view of the facts and circumstances stated above it can be said that the Complainant is Consumer under S2 (1) (d) CP Act.
Point No. 2:- The O.P has office within territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.
Valuation of the present case is Rs. 5000/- which is less than Rs. 20,00000/-.
So, this forum has territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to try this case.
Point No. 3 & 4 :- Both the points are taken up for convenience the of discussions as they related to each other.
The Complaint in his Complainant and evidence stated that he applied for Electric line in the Submersible Pump before the opposite party. That the opposite party enquired into the matter and sent quotation to the complainant. That the complainant deposited the quotation amount of Rs. 2,329/- and Rs.2,000/- being money receipt No. 4254379 and 4254380 dated 12.05.2015 before the opposite party. That the opposite party effected e/line in the SMP of the complainant and he was consuming the e/line since the date of connection and he has been paying e/line bills so far sent by the opposite party as per law.
The receipts dated 12/05/2015 show that Rs 2,329/- and Rs. 2,800/- have been deposited by the Complaint to the OP/WBSEDCL as quotation money for getting electric line.
The complaint in his evidence further stated that there are there are 14 (fourteen) SMP consumers in the area of the complainant. That at the first there was a Transformer of 63KVA and another Transformer of 63KVS was installed with due permission of the opposite party in order to reduce load and as such 14 (fourteen) persons are divided into two group in two Transformer. That some persons having ill intention tried to make club/ cluster of 14 persons in a Transformer of 63KVA which beyond the capacity to supply e/line in 14 SMP of 5HP caliber. That the complainant protested and lodged complaint before the opposite party but they did not take any step preventive measure. That there after some miscreants disconnected the service connection in the SMP of the complainant and he reported the same before the opposite party for restoration of his e/line but the opposite party has not taken any step for the same.
Copy of the Complainants dated 01/03/2016, 02/03/2016, 10/03/2016 and 22/03/2016 show that the Complaint submitted said Complainants before the OP/WBSEDCL alleging creating disturbance and disconnection of his electric connection by some local people.
We find that it is specific case of the OP that two connections were given from two separate 63KVS DTRS with other consumers SMP connection. That one of the SMP connections of the complainant was disconnected by the SMP consumers as there may be dispute between the complainant and other consumer and as such there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
We find that in reply to the question No. 6 put by the OP to PW1/Complaint Abdul Ahad he admitted that so-called malcontents disconnected his service connection as there is dispute between him and miscreants.
In reply to the question No. 8 put to him he admitted that suggestion put to him is partly true and his dispute is village dispute.
So, in view of our above made discussion in the present case mischief/disconnection of electric line was done not by the OP/WBSEDCL but some co-villagers of the Complaint and the present dispute is not dispute between the Consumer and service provider rather a village dispute between the co-villagers.
We find that in W/V the OP specifically stated that getting information about disconnection of SMP from the complainant the O.P department/the opposite party advised the complainant would run his 2 nos. of SMP connection alternatively from one of the 63KVA DTR. That the opposite party called the complainant and other SMP consumers for mutual settlement of their local problem regarding the SMP connection.
The complaint has not denied such contention of the OP. So, it is clear that OP has made afford to resolve the problem but in vein.
We find that the Complaint has also prayed that if so need a separate Transformer of 10 KVA may be installed for the SMP of the Complaint.
In our view installation of a separate 10 KVA transformer may solved the problem and an opportunity should be given to the complainant to apply to the OP/WBSEDCL for installation of 10 KVA transformer after observing all formalities.
Considering over all matter into consideration and materials on record we are constrained to hold that the Complaint has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Thus both points are decided against the Complaint.
The case fails.
The Complainant is sufficiently stamped.
Hence
O R D E R E D
that C.F case No. 85/2016 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OP on without any cost.
However an opportunity is given to the Complaint to apply to OP/Station Manager WBSEDCL Murarrai for installation of a 10 KVA Transformer after observing all formalities and OP station Manager WBSEDCL Murarrai is directed to consider the prayer legally and properly.
Copy of this order be supplied to the parties each free of cost.
