In the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Murshidabad

Berhampore, Murshidabad.

Case No. C.C/175 /2015

Date of filing: 21/09/2015                                                                                         Date of Final Order: 02/08/2016

Mahiruddin Mondal.

S/O- Late Naimuddin Mondal.

Vill.- Tehatta, P.O.- Bundai Nagar.P.S.- Hariharpara.

Dist- Murshidabad,         ……………………………...   Complainant                                                                                         

                                                          - Vs-

Station Manager,

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

 P.O.-Baruipara. P.S.- Hariharpara.

Dist.- Murshidabad.                                      ………….….………… Opposite Party

Mr.Sambarta Mukherjee. Ld. Adv…………….……………………………. for the complainant

                Mr.SiddharthaSankarDhar Ld. Advocate…………………………………….for the Opposite Party.

                                          Before:     Hon’ble President, Anupam Bhattacharyya.           

                                                              Hon’ble Member, Samaresh Kumar Mitra.

                                                              Hon’ble Member, Pranati Ali.

FINAL ORDER

Samaresh Kumar Mitra, Member.  

                    The brief facts of the case is that complainant being a proprietor of a rice mill applied for industrial connection and deposited a sum of Rs.2000/- for earnest money to the OP. On the prayer of the complainant the OP inspected the said premises for installation of industrial connection and submitted the inspection report in favour of the complainant and issued a quotation. Accordingly the complainant paid a sum of Rs.47,579/- & Rs.39,625/- to the OP on 12.06.2015. And after getting the sums as deposited by the complainant the OP assured that the said new connection will be installed within a few days. On several occasions complainant requested the OP to install the said connection but OP failed to provide power to this complainant rather denied to install the same on 20.11.2015. As the complainant makes his livelihood from this business so he suffered huge monetary loss and also suffered mental pain & agony due to deficiency of this OP. So this complainant getting no alternative filed the instant complainant before this Forum for redressal as prayed in the prayer portion of the complaint.

         The OP appeared by its advocate and filed written version denying the allegations as leveled against him and averred that after issuing quotation the complainant paid the amount on 12.06.2015. Then the OP issued work order against the new service connection on 03.08.2015 and erection work was started at that time Sahed Mondal & others raised objection against such connection and informed that a partition suit is pending before the civil judge Sr. Divn. That due to resistance of Sahed Mondal & others the OP unable to effect the electric connection in the premises of this complainant. This OP further assailed that the petitioner is not a consumer as the electric connection sought for running a Rice Mill which cannot be consider as self employment, so the petition is liable to be rejected.

         The complainant filed evidence on affidavit which is nothing but replica of complaint petition.

             The argument as advanced by the parties/agents heard in full.  

             From the discussion herein above, we find the following Issues/Points for consideration.

ISSUES/POINTS   FOR   CONSIDERATION

1. Whether the Complainant ‘Mahiruddin Mondal’ is a ‘Consumer’ of the Opposite Party?
2. Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
3. Whether the O.Ps carried on unfair trade practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards the Complainant?
4. Whether the complainant proved his case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to him?

DECISION WITH REASONS

   In the light of discussions here in above we find that the issues/points should be decided based on the above perspectives.

(1).Whether the Complainant ‘Mahiruddin Mondal’ is a ‘Consumer’ of the opposite party?

     From the materials on record it is transparent that the Complainant by depositing the quotation money became the consumer of the OP as provided by the spirit of section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. 

     (2).Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?

                Both the complainant and opposite party are residents/carrying on business within the district of Murshidabad. The complaint valued within Rs.20,00,000/- limit of this Forum. So, this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case.           

    (3).Whether the opposite party carried on Unfair Trade Practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards the Complainant?

              The opposite party being the largest Electric Supply Company throughout the state having a  lot of offices, power stations, substations and power generating stations decorated with a lot of expert hands and running its business with goodwill for a long period and providing/rendering service for development of society as well as implementing a lot of Govt. Programs. So the role of OP Company for the development of the society is unquestionable.

                The O.P. herein is the Station Manager of an office of the largest electric supply company throughout the State of W.B. The Company WBSEDCL running its business throughout the state except territorial jurisdiction of Kolkata Corporation. The O.P. Company is providing power in the rural areas in different projects for a long period.  That is why the consumers in the rural areas are highly grateful to the Company. While providing powers throughout the state it also suffers from many discrepancies. Like not sending/ preparing bills in due time or sending bills for a period when the powers are discontinued and not taking reading regularly as a result the consumers suffer from paying accumulated units at a higher rate. As a consequence the consumers suffer a lot and make their grievances for remedy.

               It appears from the case record that the complainant paid the quotation money as issued by the OP in two heads i.e. security deposit & connection charge. Thereafter he visited the OP several times for getting electric connection in his premises but the OP could not effect the connection for a long time. And from the written version of the OP we come to know that the OP could not effect connection in the premises of the complainant as he faced obstruction from the end of Sahed Mondal & othrs. The protestors also informed this OP that a partition suit is pending before the Civil Court. For which the OP could not effectuate the connection so he has no deficiency in service towards the complainant.

         It appears from the case record that the complainant by depositing the quotation money became the consumer of the OP and visited the place of the OP several times for getting connection in his business place. The OP in his written version admitted that he issued work order & erection work started for effectuate the connection but he failed to provide connection due to obstruction of Sahed Mondal & others who informed that a partition suit is pending before the Civil Judge Sr. Divn. Getting obstruction from a few persons the OP could not effectuate the power connection of this Complainant. After perusing the case record we find that there is no impediment to provide connection in the Rice Mill of the complainant as there is no order of civil court in respect of restraining this OP to provide power to this complainant. In these circumstances we are in a considered opinion to provide power to this complainant so that he can run his mill with the help of power supplied by this OP.

        So we are in considered opinion to allow the complaint in part so that the OP can connect the power connection of this Complainant as early as possible with the help of police personnel if required.

4). Whether the complainant proved his case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to him?

            The discussion made herein before, we have no hesitation to come in a conclusion that the Complainant abled to prove his case and the Opposite Party is not liable to pay any compensation for deficiency of service.

ORDER

              Hence it is ordered that the complaint be and the same is allowed in part on contest with no order as to cost against the Opposite party.

             The OP is directed to connect the industrial connection in the rice mill of this complainant as early as possible with the help of police personnel if required within 30 days from receiving this order and submit a report of connection in this Forum immediately.

            The OP is at liberty to take the help of police personnel if required during the course of providing power connection in the premises of this complainant.

            No other reliefs are awarded to the complainant.

           At the event of failure to comply with the order the Opposite Party shall pay cost @ Rs.50/- for each day’s delay, if caused, on expiry of the aforesaid 30 days by depositing the accrued amount, if any,  in the fund of  “Consumer Legal Aid Account”.

           Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their Ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/sent by ordinary post forthwith, for information & necessary action.

           Dictated and corrected by me.

                  Member,                                                    Member,                                  President,