Date of Filing: 23.12.2015 Date of Final Order: 29.08.2017
Smt. Runa Ganguly, Member.
The case of the Complainant is in brief that the Complainant with desire to construct a husking mill at Amlaguri Bazar under Maruganj Gram Panchayat for which the Complainant approached to the O.P. No.1 to install New Electric Connection. Thereafter, as per instruction of the O.P. No.I the Complainant submitted application form along with relevant documents which was acknowledged by the O.P. No.1. The Complainant also deposited earnest Money of Rs. 2000/- to the O.P. After elapsing so many times, by not getting electric connection the Complainant made several contact to the O.P. No.1, all of a sudden the O.P. intimated the Complainant by one letter dated 20.10.2011 that the O.P. would not install New Electric Connection at the Business Premises of the Complainant for some technical reason. Thereafter, the Complainant went to the O.P.s to get back his deposited amount of Rs.49,086/- but the O.P. did not response. The complainant invested a huge money for getting new electric connection in his business premises but due to whimsical and unethical act of the O.P. the Complainant suffered huge monetary loss. The O.P. without prior inspection received new connection charge. The O.P. did not refund the deposited amount to the Complainant despite failure to give electric connection in his husking mill. The Complainant is a bonafide consumer and entitled to get relief before this Forum for deficiency in Service of the O. P.S.
Thus, he filed the present case praying relief and compensation as incorporated in the prayer portion of the complaint.
The O.P. NO.1 by appearing through Ld. Agent contested the case contending inter alia that the present case is not maintainable in its present form as well as in law, the present complainant is not a ‘Consumer’ as defined U/S 2(1)(d) of C.P. Act 1986 as such he is not entitled to file any complaint before the consumer Forum. This answering O.P. stated that the Complainant deposited earnest money of Rs.2,000/- on 29.08.2011 and quotation money amount of Rs.47,081 on 19.02.2011 for new electric connection in his business premises. The other allegation made by the Complainant has been denied by the O.P. No. 1.
The O.P. No.1 further contended that after depositing the quotation money by the Complainant, the O.P. issued work order after completion of all departmental procedure. The O.P. issued work order on 03.09.2012 to M/S Das Electric. But unfortunately, said industrial Connection could not be effected by the O.P. due to way leave problem. The local villagers of Gohim Bazar resisted the staff of M/S Das electric and WBSEDCL to give way leave permission.
The further contention of this O.P. is that this O.P. No. 1 along with the Complainant tried to settle the problem of way leave permission in the site but all efforts were in vain. It is the responsibility of the Complainant to arrange way leave permission from his neighbour for which this O.P. has no liability or deficiency in service. On 27.05.2013 this O.P. intimated the Complainant vide his office memo No Tfg/CCC/2013-14/358, dated 27.05.2013 about non-installation of electric connection. Thereafter, the Complainant prayed for refunding the security money to the O.P. The O.P. after receiving the prayer on 09.07.2013 took all steps to refund the said money but due to some technical reason it took times. Ultimately, on 16.12.2015 the O.P. arranged to refund of Rs.23,731/- but the complainant refused to accept the said amount. The Complainant deposited also the service connection charge of Rs. 23,350/- but the said amount is not refundable as the O.P. provided service with M/S Das Electric in the site but problem has not been solved. There was no fault of WBSEDCL, if there is any fault of O.P. then the service connection charge must be refunded.
By putting all this the O.P. stated that there is no deficiency on the part of the O.P. and prayed for dismissal of the case with cost.
In this case the O.P. No.2 did not come forward before this Forum despite receiving the notice. Thus, the present case proceeded with ex-parte against the O.P. No. 2
In the light of the contention of the Complainant, the following moot points necessarily came up for consideration.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the Complainant Consumer as per Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?
- Have the O.Ps any deficiency in service as alleged by the Complainant and are they liable in any way?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief/reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
We have gone through the record very carefully and perused the evidence on affidavit of both parties. Perused the entire documents in the record also heard the argument advanced by the Ld. Agent for the O.P. No.1. The Complainant remain absent on the date fixed for argument. Peruse the W/Ar. filed by the parties.
Point No. 1.
Evidently, the Complainant deposited an amount of Rs.49,086/- to the O.P. for taking an electric connection in his husking Mill. The O.P. received the same and issued receipt in favour of the Complainant. The Complainant hired service from the O.P. against certain consideration. The purpose of the Complainant for getting the said service is for commercial purpose. He applied for an electric connection in his husking mill. In the complaint petition the Complainant nowhere stated that he is running his husking mill for earning his livelihood by means of self employment.
The O.P. in its w/v as well as in Evidence on affidavit has taken plea that the said electric connection was for commercial purpose and Industrial connection for which the Complainant is not a consumer as per C.P. Act 1986.
It is a fact that the complainant applied for electric connection in his husking mill Ultimately, the said connection has not been effected in his husking Mill due to same technical difficulties but the purpose of the Complainant was for commercial.
Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of C. P. Act 1986 describes the “Consumer”. Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) be read as hereunder.
“[hires or avails of] any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary or such services other than the person who [hires or avails of] the services for consideration paid or promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person [but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose;]”
In the light of foregoing discussion it is crystal clear that the Complainant is not a Consumer. Thus, this case is not maintainable before this Forum and liable to be dismissed. Therefore, no need to discuss other three points.
Hence,
it is Ordered,
That the complaint be and the same is dismissed on contest. No order as to costs.
Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied to the concerned party by hand/by Registered Post with A/D forthwith, free of cost, for information & necessary action as per rule.
Dictated and corrected by me.
