West Bengal

Birbhum

CC/15/50

Md Muhutaram Ali Abu Salem - Complainant(s)

Versus

Station Manager, Murarai.C.C.C, W.B.S.E.D.C.L - Opp.Party(s)

Bibekananda Paitandy

25 Aug 2022

ORDER

Smt. Sukla Sengupta .President.

            This is a case filed by the complainant U/S 12 of the C.P. Act 1986 as amended update.

            The fact of the case in brief is that the complainant being a resident under the jurisdiction of this Commission has run his husking pedal with the help of electricity to earn his livelihood. He has no other source of income except the income derived from the husking pedal. The complainant is a self-employed person.

            It is further stated that on 18/01/2005 the complainant applied for electricity connection in his husking pedal to the OP situated at his plot No. 27/430 under Mouza -Mallickpur, P.O. Dantura, P.S. Murarai, Dist. Birbhum.

            On received of the said application the OP issued a quotation being No. MUR/ES/T-11/3075 dated 16/02/2006 whereby the OP directed the complainant to deposit a sum of Rs 1,97,224.00 and in the said quotation the OP specifically stated that the consumer will bear the cost of 63 KVA Transformer along with the cost of HT Line. Accordingly the complainant deposited the amount of Rs. 1,97,224.00/- only on 21/02/2016 at the office of the OP but the OP did not install the electricity connection in the aforesaid premises of the OP.

            Under such circumstances the complainant filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court, Kolkata. Then the Hon’ble High Court disposed the matter on 14/08/2006 by giving a direction upon the OP to give electric connection in the complainant’s husking pedal within two weeks from the dali of order.

           

The OP failed to comply the direction of the Hon’ble High Court hence, a contempt application was filed against the OP and contempt rule was issued against the OP by the Hon’ble High Court. Thereafter the electricity connection was installed by the OP in the premises of the complainant for his husking pedal from the existing substation which was installed previously and at the time of installation only four (04) electric poles were used and the complainant purchased the electric wires at his own cost.

It is further alleged that the OP did not install any 63 KVA transformer for which the complainant deposited the amount of Rs. 1,97,224/- only.

            Under such circumstances the complainant is entitled to refund back the rest amount after deduction of the installation charge and other required charges and he requested the OP to refund the rest amount to him in writing dated 11/04/2015 but vein.

            The complainant is a consumer under the OP and the OP being the service provider neglecting the demand of the complainant as the OP did not refund the question amount of Rs. 1,97,224/- only by deducting the installation charge of Rs. 4,000/- which amounts to deficiency of service.

            It is alleged by the complainant that the OP harassed him and caused mental pain and agony by neglecting his prayer. Hence, this case. The cause of action arose on 11/04/2015.

            The complainant has filed this case with a prayer to pass an order directing the opposite party to refund a sum of Rs. 1,93,224/- only to the complainant along with interest @12% p.a. of Rs. 1,93,224/- only since 21/02/2006 till realization of the amount and to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as litigation cost along other relief or reliefs.

            The OP/WBSEDCL has contested the claim application by filing a written version denying all the material allegations levelled against it.

            It is stated by the OP that the complainant is not a consumer and he made the husking pedal for commercial purpose. So, he has no locustandy to file this case.

            It is the OP’s case that admittedly the complainant applied for SMP connection. The OP after inspection noticed the complainant to deposit the amount in question. The complainant deposited the amount but due to non-availability of the connection materials the OP could be able to install separate DRT and due to urgency the connection was effected from the existing DTR.

            It is also admitted by the OP that the complainant can get the refund of the amount deposited by him for installation (Transformer) only after deduction of the other changes for installation.

                        In view of the above stated pleadings following issues are framed:

 

Issues

1. Is the case maintainable?
2. Has the complainant any cause of action to file this case?
3. Is the complainant is a consumer as per CP Act 1986?
4. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the OP?
5. Is the complainant entitled to get the compensation as prayed for?
6. To what other relief or reliefs is the complainant entitled to get?

   Decision with reason.

                        All these issues are taken up together for convenience of discussions and to avoid unnecessary repetitions.

                        It is the case of the complainant that being a resident of Dantura, P.S. Murarai, Dist. Birbhum he applied for electricity connection for his husking pedal situated as plot No. 27/430 under Mouza-Mallickpur, P.O. Dantura, P.S. Murarai, Dist. Birbhum to the office of the West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. represented by Station Manager, residential at Murarai C.C.C, P.o and P.S. Murarai, Dist. Birbnhum which is within the territorial jurisdiction of DCDRC/DCDRF, Birbhum.

                        The valuation of the subject matter of this case is also within the limit of the DCDRC/DCDRF, Birbhum.

                        It is also the case of the complainant that he is a consumer under the OP having electricity connection No. IND 15317.

                        It is also the case of the complainant that when he applied for the electricity connection for his husking pedal to the OP/WBSEDCL, the OP after inspection directed him to deposit an amount of Rs. 1,97,224/- only towards installation charge as per quotation dated 18/01/2005 as issued by the OPs.

                        From the facts and circumstances of this case and also from the evidence on record it is revealed that the complainant his deposited the amount of Rs. 1,97,224/- only to the office of the OP on 21/02/2016, but after a long battle and as per direction of the Hon’ble High Court, Kolkata vide it’s order dated 14/08/2006 in a writ petition filed by the complainant the OP ultimately installed the electricity connection in the husking pedal of the complainant. The cause of action arose on 11/04/2015 when even after repeated request of the complainant in writing the OP did not refund the excess amount of money deposited by the complainant as installation charge. Then the case was filed by the complainant on 28/04/2015.

                        Hence, in view of the discussions made above it is crystal clear that the case is well maintainable as per law.

                       

                        It is also revealed from the facts and circumstances of this case and also from the evidence on record that the case is not barred by Scc. 24 (A) of the C.P. Act.

                        From the evidence on record, facts and circumstances of this case and also from the discussions made above it is revealed that the complainant has enough cause of action to file this case.

                        It is the case of the complainant that after getting his application for installment electricity connection in his husking pedal, from which the complainant being a self-employed person used to maintain his livelihood, the OP issued the quotation available in the case record as annexure along with the petition of complaint filed by the complainant. From the said quotation dated 16/02/2006 it is found that the complainant asked by the OP to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,97,224/- only for installation of electricity connection in his husking pedal.

                        From the evidence and materials on record it is revealed that the OP ultimately installed the electricity connection in the husking pedal of the complainant being service connection No. IND 15317 from which and also from the written version as well as arguments of the Ld. Advocate for the OP we got that the complainant is admittedly a consumer under the OP West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. and WBSEDCL i.e. OP is the service provider to the complainant.

                        Hence, in view of the discussions made above it is decided by the Commission that the complainant is a consumer under the OP/WBSEDCL and the WBSEDCL is the service provider.

                        Let us she whether there is any deficiency in service on the part OP or not. From the written version of the OP is it palpably clear that admittedly the complainant is a consumer under the OP and his electricity connection in being A/C No. IND 15317 under the Op.

                        It is also admitted fact that the complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 1,97,224/- only to the office of the OP on 21/02/2006 as per quotation being No. Mur/ES/T-11/3075 dated 16/02/2006 issued by the OP for installation of electricity connection in the husking pedal of the complainant which is the only source of his income. Admittedly the OP installed that connection after a long period as per direction of the Hon’ble High Court, Kolkata, vide it is judgement dated 14/08/2006 in a writ petition.

                        It is alleged by the complainant in his evidence has PW1 and also in his written argument and in the petition of the complaint that the OP directed him to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,97,224/- only and specifically stated in the quotation dated 16/02/2006 that the complainant/consumer will bear the cost of 63 KVA Transformer along with cost of HT Line.

                        It is the admitted fact that the OP did not install any separate 63 KVA Transformer to effect the electricity connection in the complainant husking pedal and Ld. Advocate for the OP argued in his written argument as well as oral argument that due to urgency the OP could not be able to install with any separate 63 KVA Transformer for giving electricity connection to the complainant’s husking pedal, from which it is crystal clear that the amount of Rs. 1,54,524/- only as mentioned in the quotation dated 16/02/2006 (issued by the OP that the parties installation 63 KVA Transformer with HT line) as deposited by the complainant has not been used and the complainant rightly prayed for refunding of the said amount to the OP on several occasions both verbally and in writing lastly on 11/04/2015. It is also admitted fact that till this date the OP did not refund the said amount to the complainant.

                         The Station Manager of WBSEDCL, Murarai, C.C.C. P.O and P.S. Murarai, Dist. Birbhum has also admitted the fact  in the open ejlash at the time of argument that the complainant deposited of Rs. 1,97,224/- only as installation charge as per quotation dated 16/02/2006 and after deducting the cost of installation charge under the head service connection charge, security deposit, materials and meter as mentioned in the quotation the rest amount which was specifically deposited by the complainant for installation of 63 KVA Transformer will be refunded to him. As per quotation the said amount is of Rs. 1,54,524/-(One lack fifty four thousand five hundred twenty four) only. because it has already been discussed and decided above that no 63 KVA Transformer has been installed by the OP at the time of effecting electric connection in the husking pedal of the complainant. Hence, there is/was sufficient deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

                        In view of the discussions made above this Commission has no hesitation to hold the view that the complainant is a consumer under the OP and the OP is the service provider. There is/was sufficient deficiency in service on the part of the OP which caused harassment to the complainant. So, it can safely be held by the Commission that the complainant could be able to prove his case beyond all reasonable doubt and this entitled to get the relief as prayed for.

                        The case is properly stamped.

                        Hence, it is,

                                    O R D E R E D,

                                                            that the instant C.C. Case No. 50/2015 be and same is allowed in part on contest with cost against the OP/WBSEDCL.

The complainant do get the decree in part as prayed for.

The OP is directed to refund the installation charge of 63 KVA amounting to Rs. 1,54,524/- only as per quotation dated 16/02/2006 issued by the OP along with interest @ 9% p.a  of the said amount from the date of filing  of this cause till realization of the entire amount.

The OP is also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 8,000/- only to the complainant as litigation cost.

 

The OP is further directed to refund the amounting of Rs. 1,54,524/- only to the complainant along with interest on the said amount @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of this case till realization of the amount along with litigation cost of 8,000/- within 45 days from this date of order in default the complainant is entitled to get further interest @ 6% p.a. on the entire amount form the date of default till realization of the entire amount.

If the OP failed to comply the decree as per direction of this Commission within 45 days from this date of order then the complainant is at liberty to execute the decree as per law.

The instant case is thus disposed of.

Let a copy of this order be given/handed over to the parties to this case free of cost.