West Bengal

Birbhum

CC/14/20

Swapan Kr. Mokndal, S/o Lt. M. Mondal, - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

SELF

30 Jan 2018

ORDER

This is a complaint made by Swapan Kr. Mondal stating that he applied for electric service connection in his submersible pump for irrigation. After enquiry the O.P Station Manager, WBSEDCL, Ahamadpur Group Electric Supply, sent quotation of Rs. 12969/-. Accordingly the complainant deposited the quotational amount on 19.07.2004 and the he complied all the formalities. After that the complainant waited for a long time for the electric service connection in his submersible pump. But the O.P did not affect the electric service connection in the submersible pump of the complainant for 9 years. The complainant having got no electric service connection in his submersible pump applied for refund the quotational amount which has been deposited before the O.P and thereafter applied before CGRO, Suri. The O.P and CGRO did not consider the application of the complainant in respect of refund the quotational amount as the complainant could not submit the original money receipt. The complainant lost the original money receipt of the quotational amount deposited on 19.07.2004.

Having no other alternative the complainant has come to the Forum for proper relief.

The O.P, Station Manager, Ahmadpur Group Electric Supply, WBSEDCL appeared and contested the case. In written version he stated that the complainant applied for electric service connection in his submersible pump is true but till date he did not comply all other formalities as per electric supply rules. The complainant did not submit the original money receipt for refund of money which is prime requirement in the case of refund.

The complainant has filed the documents along with examination in chief on affidavit.

Upon pleading of the parties following points are to be considered for discussion.

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer or not?
2. Whether the O.P has deficiency in service or not?
3. Is the complainant entitled to get relief as prayed for?

DECISION WITH REASONS

Admitted fact the complainant applied for electric service connection in his submersible pump for irrigation. The O.P made enquiry and thereafter having been satisfied the O.P issued quotation in the name of the complainant being quotation No. 92 dated 21.05.2004. The complainant deposited the quotational amount of Rs. 12969/- through three receipts being No. OR/P/03-04/005320 dated 19.07.2004 amounting Rs. 2250/-, No. OR/P/03-04/005321 dated 19.07.2004 amounting to Rs. 9219/- and No. OR/P/03-04/005322 dated 19.07.2004 amounting to Rs. 1500/-. The O.P also registered the name of the complainant mentioning service connection No. 8002/STW. Therefore the complainant is a consumer under the O.P and the O.P is a service provider of the complainant.

The complainant deposited the quotational amount on 19.07.2004. Since then the O.P did not affect the connection to the complainant’s submersible pump. Several correspondence was made on the part of the complainant till 2012 and lastly the complainant submitted a petition for refunding the quotational amount to him on 08.08.2012 and on 06.09.2013. He also applied to the CGRO, Suri for non-action on the part of the O.P. The CGRO, WBSEDCL, Suri, Birbhum heard the grievance of the petitioner on 26.03.2013 and issued a letter mentioning ‘the petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of failure to furnish requisite papers’.

The cause of action arose on and from 19.07.2004 and continued till 19.10.2013. The complainant filed this complaint to the Forum on 07.02.2014. So, the case is not barred by limitation.

Now, the question is why the O.P did neither effect the connection nor refund the quotational money to the complainant? The letter to the complainant issued by the O.P on 19.10.2013 reveals that the complainant failed to produce requisite papers. In case of non-refunding quotational money, the complainant was directed to produce original money receipts. The petitioner in his complaint stated that he lost the original money receipts and in this regard he lodged GDE being No. 36/12 dated 02.08.2012. So he failed to produce original receipts. Instead of original receipts he filed Xerox copies of original money receipts and the copy of GDE. He also stated in examination in chief on affidavit that ‘I lost the original money receipts and for that I made GDE before Ahmadpur police phanri’.

Surprisingly the Forum noticed that in reply of the questionnaires the complainant by affidavit says that he has filed the original money receipts to the O.P. Ld. Advocate for the O.P made a question against affidavit of the complainant – ‘will you produce the original money receipt against your payment?’ the complainant by affidavit replied to question No.1 that I filed the original money receipts to the O.P. It is true to my knowledge and belief. The complainant further replied in response to question No.2 that it is not correct that I did not file any original money receipts or I am not entitled to get refund any money – it is also true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

What statement made by affidavit is correct? Can a complainant make to opposite statement in reply form by affidavit? The complainant has done it. The complainant wants to mislead the Forum. Therefore the case is dismissed.

Proper fees have been paid.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

that C.F case No. 20/2014 be and the same is dismissed without any order as to cost.

Copy of this order be supplied to the parties each free of cost.