IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.

CASE No.CC/54/2016.

 Date of Filing:   06.04.2016.                                       Date of Final Order: 06.02.2017.

Complainant: Prasanta Mondal, S/O Ganapati Mondal, Vill. Majlishpur, P.O. Kamnagar,

                        P.S. Shaktipur, Dist. Murshidabad. Pin 742405.

-Vs-

Opposite Party: 1. S.M. Saktipur CCC, P.O.& P.S.  Saktipur, Dist. Murshidabad, Pin-742163.

                        2. The S.M. Rejinagar CCC, P.S. Rejinagar Dist. Murshidabad. Pin –742189.

                        3.The R.G.R.O, WBSEDCL, P.O.& P.S. Berhampore, Dist. Murshidabad.

                            Pin-742101.

                        4. The Divisional Manager, WBSEDCL, P.O.&P.S. Berhampore, Dist. Murshidabad.

                                    Pin-742101.

                       Present:   Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya …………………. President.                              

                                                                        Smt. Pranati Ali ……….……………….……………. Member

FINAL ORDER

            Smt. Pranati Ali, Presiding Member.

            Instant complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 for return back the deposited money of Rs.28,860/- for his electric connection along with Rs.22000/- as interest from  the OP.

            The complainant’s case, in brief, is that the complainant Prosanta Mondal deposited Rs. 28,860/- to the OP No.2/S.M. Rejinagar CCC for electric connection to his paddy machine in the year 2000/-. But due to financial problem he was unable to receive the line for nearly 10 years. Afterwards, in the year 2010, the complainant want to return back his deposited amount but by this time his area falls under the jurisdiction of S.M. Saktipur CCC. So, he applied to the S.M. Saktipur CCC/Op No.1 with the deposition of original money receipt as well as follows the all instructions of the OP. But the OP did not pay any heed into this matter. At last on January, 2016 he applied to this Forum for proper redress.

            On the other hand, the OP No.1 and OP No.2 appeared in this case by filing two separate written versions, where they confirmed the statement of the complainant and also stated that the complainant applied to the Saktipur CCC on 19.08.2010 to get refund of deposited amount. The Saktipur CCC has taken all possible measures by sending proposal to the Divisional Manager, Kandi Division through a note sheet on 28.05.2014, after that on 31.12.2015 that proposal was returned back to the office of Saktipur CCC with a request to submit some documents by the complainant. The Saktipur CCC issued letter to the complainant on 19.01.2016 and the complainant submitted the documents on 05.02.2016. The OP No.1 sent the proposal along with requisite documents to the Divisional Manager, Kandi and the Divisional Manager Kandi has initiated the process, thus the OP is ready to pay the refundable amount to the complainant, when it will be released by the Asstt. Manager (F&A) from the office of the Divisional Office, Kandi Division.

            However, the OP No.3 and 4 have not turned up in spite of receiving notices and for that the case is taken up for ex parte against the OP Nos. 3 & 4.

            The only point for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs or not and for whether there complainant is entitled to get any relief or not.

                                                        Decision with reasons.

            It is to be mentioned that the complainant has submitted some documents in support of his case.

            Perused the documents on record, we observed that the admitted position of the case is the complainant deposited the amount of Rs.28,860/- to the OP for electric connection and now he want to return back that amount. As because, though he deposited service connection charge, security deposit, cost of meter etc but due to financial problem he was not ready to take the line so many years.

            On the other hand, when the complainant want to return back the amount on the same ground then though the OP No.1 delayed nearly 4 years to return back the said amount, yet he agreed to do so which is evident in his written version. The delaying attitude of the OP is clearly a deficiency in service of the OP.

            Besides, this, the complainant applied and deposited the said amount for husking machine as his future plan of earning but due to financial crisis he is unable to do so. For that he refused to take the electric line and wanted to get back the deposited amount. So, he is entitled to get back the deposited amount of Rs.28, 860/- by the OP as early as possible.

            Hence,

                                                                      Ordered

that the complaint Case No.54/2016 be and the same is hereby allowed on contest without any order as to cost.

            The OPs are directed to return back the deposited amount of Rs.28,860/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the OPs are to pay Rs.50/- per day’s delay and the amount so accumulated shall be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account. 

Let a plain copy of this order be made available and be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties on contest in person, Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand under proper acknowledgment / be sent forthwith under ordinary post  to the concerned parties as per rules, for information and necessary action.