C.F. CASE No. : CC/2013/50
COMPLAINANT : Kalidas Pramanik
S/o Late Dhirendranath Pramanik
Vill. Ghoshpara, P.O. Debagram
P.S. Kaliganj, Dist. Nadia
Vs –
OPPOSITE PARTY/OP : Station Manager,
W.B.S.E.D.C.L.
Debagram Electric Supply,
Ghoshpara, P.O. Debagram,
P.S. Kaliganj, Dist. Nadia
PRESENT : SHRI PRADIP KUMAR BANDYOPADHYAY, PRESIDENT
: SMT REETA ROYCHAUDHURY MALAKAR, MEMBER
: SHRI SHYAMAL KUMAR GHOSH, MEMBER
DATE OF DELIVERY
OF JUDGMENT : 16th June, 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, Kalidas Pramanik, S/o Dhirendra Pramanik has lodged this case against the Station Manager, W.B.S.E.D.C.L., Debagram Electric Supply Office. The OP disconnected the electric line of the complainant from 10/11 to 12/11. On 04.03.13 the complainant paid the bill along with fine of Rs. 1001/-. Disconnection was made vide annexure – 1. Disconnection notice is ‘Annexure-2’. The present case is for harassing the complainant by disconnecting his line resulting in inconvenience of the ailing wife of the complainant. The complainant has prayed for compensation of Rs. 10,000/- along with cost of the suit.
On 06.03.13, the complainant gave written request to redress his grievances but the OP failed to do so. That has resulted in cause of action of the case.
Written argument was filed on 08.04.14 by the complainant and on 30.04.14 the OP filed a written argument of this case.
We have meticulously gone through the pleadings of the parties, affidavit, evidence interrogatories and annexed documents.
POINTS FOR DECESION
- Point No. 1: Is the complainant a consumer under the OP?
- Point No. 2: Has the opposite party legally disconnected the electric line?
- Point No. 3: What relief the complainant is entitled to get?
REASOND DECISIONS
For the purpose of brevity and convenience all the points are taken up together for discussion.
Ld. Advocate for the complainant has submitted straightly that the complainant, Kalidas Pramanik is a consumer being the heir of his father Late Dhirendra Nath Pramanik. Ld. Advocate for the complainant has referred Section II (B), V in support of his contention.
We have meticulously gone through the written argument filed by both parties. We have also considered the petition and written version of the parties. In the written version the OP has challenged all contentions by filing written application dtd. 08.11.13. The Service connection of Dhirendra Nath Pramanik was disconnected on 29.06.12 due to the outstanding dues amounting of Rs. 100/- for the period from 10/11 to 12/11. The OP advised to take fresh connection in the name of the petitioner but he did not do so. It is admitted position that Dhirendra Nath Pramanik was a consumer.
In the affidavit evidences filed on 31.12.13 Kalidas Pramanik has stated that his wife’s nursing could not been properly looked after because of disconnection of the line. Perused the documents showing receipts by the OP electric company and medical document of the wife of the complainant (Annexure -1, 3). Annexure – 4 is the request letter by Kalidas Pramanik on behalf of Dhirendra Nath Pramanik since deceased to address to Station Manager, W.B.S.E.D.C.L. for reconnection of electricity on the residential premises of the complainant. We have meticulously gone through the affidavit evidence and interrogatories. We are convinced that the pregnant wife of the complainant had to suffer a loss without electricity.
In that letter the attempt to get electricity connection by Soumajit Pramanik the nephew in the same line has been highlighted.
Hence, in view of the above analysis, we are inclined to hold that the complainant has failed to establish his case, i.e., the complainant is not entitled to get any relief. Thus all the points are disposed of against the complainant.
Hence,
Ordered,
That, the case CC/2013/50 be and the same is dismissed on contest. No cost.
Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.
