Date of Filing: 23-07-2013. Date of Final Order: 26-05-2014
The case of the Complainant Mr. Ramesh Ch. Biswasharma in brief, is that on receipt of his application No.4000238952, (Application Type: New Connection) on 21-08-2012, a Quotation Bill as per WBSEDCL Procedure–A(2010) under Memo No.00238952/QUOT/03 dated 30-07-2012 was issued by Khagrabari, CCC to him. He paid Earnest Money Rs.200/-on 16-01-2012, Service Connection Charge Rs.200/-& Security Deposit Rs.491/- on 28-08-2013 under Money Receipts and awaited for electric connection at his house, on completion of his Internal Wiring. He lodged his complaint in the Complaint Book, as the O.P.No.1 refused to receive his written complaint in respect of non-installation of electric line in his house but till 23-07-2013 no electric connection was installed, for which he along with the members of his family became mentally ill. He has been complaining to the O.Ps and also lodging complaints in Complaint Book in every month. On 10-07-2013 when he requested the O.P.No.1, the staffs under him misbehaved with him using harsh words against him. He, after intimating the respectable persons of his village, as despite his persuasion he failed to get the connection, as per their advice, he filed this case; but remedy could be achieved. He has alleged, he was told that at the event of getting electric connection he is to spend money. The matters of new connections are not being transparently placed in the Notice Board. Some new connections are dishonestly given to some of the applicants. He has enclosed three Xerox copies of documents under a List vide-(1) Quotation as per WBSEDCL Procedure-A (2010), (2) Money Receipt Serial Nos. (i) A-0909305 of Rs.200/- & (ii) A-0909306 of Rs.491/- both Dated 28-08-2012, (3) Ration Card No.2274201 of Ramesh Ch. Biswasarma.
He prayed for direction upon the O.Ps to (1) Install electric connection at his house, (2) Pay Rs.30,000/- towards mental/physical pain & harassment, (3) Rs.50,000/- for financial loss, (4) Rs.2,000/- as Litigation Cost. He has filed the ‘Authorisation’ Letter, appointing Mr. Shirsendu Kumar Roy Basunia, Ld. Advocate to conduct his case along with his Affidavit before the Notary, separately.
Accordingly, DF Case No.76/2013 was registered & after hearing the Ld. Adv. on admission point, the case was admitted. 22-08-2013 was fixed for S/R & appearance.
On that date Ld. Adv. Mr. Dhrubajyoti Karmakar appeared by filing appearance for the O.P.No.1, filing his Letter of appointment by the D. M & D. E, Cooch Behar Division (Without Memo No. & Date) and took time to file W/V. The O.P. Nos.2 & 3, despite receipt of the Notice remained absent without step. Hence, their case was taken up in Ex-Parte hearing fixing 13-09-2013 for filing W/V. On that date the Ld. Adv. for the O.P. No.1 filed a petition with encl. (1) Memo No. KB/CCC/T-42/516 Date 19-08-2013 address to Ramesh Ch. Biswasarma stating that the area of the petitioner, was electrified in July, 2013 and to effect his service, L.T Line needs extension by erecting 2 PCC Poles, and the electrification project of the said locality is of R.E. Wing the petitioner being an A.P.L. beneficiary there is no scope to create vast infrastructure etc. Further, that the mandatory formalities viz. installation of main switch, earthling, internal wiring etc were not done. He was directed to complete the internal wiring. A Pre-Charging Report was also delivered to the complainant under his signature on 02-08-2013 by the Inspection Team and that for new connection time consuming necessary formalities are to be taken. On the dates 01-10-2013, 10-10-2013, 07-11-2013, 06-12-2013 & 27-12-2013 he took time, more or less on the same said ground. Meanwhile, on 27-08-13 the complainant filed a petition to appoint Mr. Utpal Kr. Ray, enclosing Driving Licence, as his authorized Agent to conduct his case which, though was rejected by the Forum, he filed his appearance and for want of quorum 30-12-2013, being insisted by Mr. Ray to appoint him with assurance that he would get the order in his favour and money would be realized for work loss & expenses in attending Court etc. Besides, it appears that he has written the complaint, petitions at different time, and assured that he would write Evidence, Argument and what other matters require, he would do. However, Mr. Utpal Kr. Ray continued his writing the petitions, evidence and also filed written argument etc. in this case and filed the same. On 21-01-2014 the Ld. Adv for the O.P. filed a petition stating that within 2/3 days the electricity connection would be done and hence 07-02-2014 was fixed for report compliance. On that date the complainant by a petition intimated this Forum that he has got the electric connection and prayed for reasonable compensation as per his complaint. The Ld. Adv. for the O.P. also filed a petition in view of above for passing Final Order, without filing Written Version. Accordingly the prayer for the O.P. was rejected fixing 25-02-2014 for filing Evidence by both side and the O.P to file the same with written version. The Complainant filed his evidence enclosing self signed 6 Xerox copies of documents and for the O.P, though W/V was filed enclosing 4 Xerox copies of documents (without authentication), evidence was not filed and for which 13-03-2014 was fixed. It was filed on that date; but without enclosing any original document. On 04-04-2014 the complainant filed his written argument; but the Ld. Adv. for the O.P. took time to file his written argument which was filed on 21-04-2014. 05-05-2014 was fixed for Final Order but on that date though both the parties appeared by filing their attendance none filed any original documents of which Xerox copies were filed earlier. Hence, considering all aspects specially the nature & status of the case we find that no party should be insisted on, to produce any such document and/or shall be allowed further opportunity to file W/V, Evidence or the like to drag a case at their suit will and caprice. We appreciate the points, raised by the complainant as to the mode of dragging the proceedings by the O.P. We fixed this day (26-05-2014) for delivery of the Final Order.
The Xerox copies of the documents filed by the respective parties are marked as Exhibits for the sake of identification and brevity of decision.
The Written Version of the O.P. No.1 speaks that all the allegations which are not on record have been denied/disputed Para wise and explained the delay in installing electric connection in the house of the complainant, due to huge number of applications, fulfillment of necessary formalities, the area of the complainant (A.P.L beneficiary) was an un-electrified area & it was electrified in July, 2013 by R.E. Wing, mandatory formalities viz. installation of main switch, earthling, internal wiring were found not done on 02-08-2013 during inspection by his staff & complainant was directed to do the same & intimate; but he did not till 10-09-2013, re-inspected on 19-08-13 and being satisfied provided the service connection on 21-01-2014 after installing two poles etc. He claimed that negligence/deficiency, if any, not on his part; but on the part of the complainant and further claimed the complaint baseless, flagrant abuse of law to harass the O.P. motivated and biased, not maintainable in its form & law etc. and finally has prayed for dismissing the case u/s 26 of the C.P. Act. He has enclosed 4 Xerox copies of documents marking Annexure ‘A’ to ‘D’, herein Marked Exhibits-‘A’ to ‘D’.
The evidence, & related documents adduced/produced by the complainant Mr. Ramesh Ch. Biswasharma, on scrutiny speaks that he is aged 40 years, by profession an agricultural labour/cultivator, is almost alike his complainant reflecting his date of application dated 21-12-2011(Exhbt-1), deposit of Rs.200/- as earnest money on16-01-2012 (Exbt-2), Quotation of WBSEDCL dated 30-07-2012 (Exbt-3), deposit of Rs.200/- as Service Connection Charge dated 28-08-2012 (Exbt-4), Deposit of Rs.491/- as Security Deposit(Exbt-5), Letter of the A.E & Station Manager, Khgrabari CCC dated 19-08-2013, Para-wise with multifarious allegations viz. inordinate delay in inspection of his house on 02-08-2013, after more than 18 months of the date of receipt of his application/deposit of earnest money, thereafter also delaying the process of installation of the electricity which finally installed on 21-01-2014 on the plea/lame excuse of not being the area electrified in July, 2013 by the Rural Electrification Wing, required installation of two poles from the end of the Pole to his house, he was a A.P.L beneficiary, not completed mandatory internal installations of main meter, wiring, earthling etc. till 02-08-2013, (intimation of the same intimated on 10-09-2013), re-inspection of the site, erection of two poles etc. at the initiation of the O.P, normal of official processes of new installation electricity and so on and what not. Besides, the complainant has vehemently agitated stating/alleging that he was subjected to discrimination by enormous harassment, by misguiding/misleading, misbehavior, the applicants of the opposite side of the main road have been provided with electric connections out of turn, refused to receive his complaints thereby committed offence. He has quoted some matters of the correspondence in between him and the O.P.at places of his evidence under inverted commas and though expressed his satisfaction after getting the electricity connection in his house he has prayed for relief as prayed for in his petition of complaint for harassment, physical/mental pain, and financial loss of his profession.
The written argument, submitted by the complainant speaks almost identical matters in different versions, repeatedly quoting the same matters therein specifically, even in questionnaire form, denying the clarification of the O.P. He has stated his experience the irregularities in lodging complaints at the office of the O.P. no.1 vide.Shri Nayan Singha (DF Case No.75/2013), Shri Kularanjan Kar (DF Case No.84/2013) & Shri Ratan Shil (DF Case No.85/2013), besides so many other consumers. He stated that the respondents are solely responsible for the delay and discrimination in providing new electricity connection to said complainant and adopted negligence in service & unfair trade practice for which he suffered so much. The complainant is also surprised to experience the process of disposal of this case with unusual delay. The Ld. D.C.D.R Forum, Cooch Behar has shown no serious concern towards the sufferings of the complainant and urgency of disposal of this case with issues relating to emergency electricity service. The complainant on every court proceedings opposed the initiatives of the respondents in mutually settling the disputes of this case, without the consent of him. The D.C.D.R. Forum, Cooch Behar has shown undue favour to the respondents of this case and allowed O.P. No.1 to submit written version six months later which has delayed the process of justice and demoralized him. The Ld. D.C.D.R Forum, Cooch Behar also allowed the O.P. No.1 to submit affidavit on evidence even after scheduled dates without cost. Finally, with all bitter experiences of court proceedings and facing loss of daily wage due to attendance at D.C.D.R Forum, Cooch Behar, he prayed for granting the demands he made in the plaint of this case.
The Written Argument filed by the Ld. Adv. for the O.P. No.1 stated so many matters as to the factum and claimed as to serious mental harassment, physical &economic loss for the acts of the O.P’s is to be proved by the complainant beyond reasonable shadow of doubt. He has explained the reasons of delay by referring to various matters with supported documents and claimed that there was no negligence or deficiency of service on the part of this O.P. to provide service connection in the house of the complainant and hence he is not entitled to any relief/compensation as claimed or any part thereof from this O.P. as the complainant failed to prove the present complaint beyond all reasonable shadow of doubt. He prayed for dismissal of the complaint petition with cost for unnecessary harassment to the O.P. i.e. WBSEDCL authority.
The complainant has not produced any original document in this case. He has enclosed three Xerox copies of petition under a list as enclosure and he has filed 6 documents as Annexure Documents 1 to 6. On scrutiny and scanning of the documents though originals have not been filed despite repeated directions, we marked the Xerox copies of the documents under his signature as exhibits for identification and convenient adjudication.
Document-1. Application Receipt dated 21-12-2011 on Format of WBSEDCL, Khagrabari CCC for new electric connection, Marked Exhibit-1.
Document-2. Money Receipt serial No. C/3114543 dated 16-01-2012 of Rs.200/- as earnest money, Marked Exhibit-2.
Document-3. Quotation dated 30-07-2012 for Rs.200/- earnest money (service charge) and Rs.491/- (security deposit), Marked Exhibit-3.
Document-4. & 5. Two Money Receipts serial No. (i) A-0909305 dated 28-08-2012 of Rs.200/- and (ii) A-0909306 dated 28-08-2012 as Security Deposit, Marked Exhibit-4, 4/1.
Document-6. Letter of A.E. & S.M, Khagrabari CCC dated 19-08-2013 vide Memo No. KB/CCC/T-42/516 addressed to Ramesh Ch. Bishwasharma in Re: New service connection, Marked Exhibit-5.
Document-7. Meter Card relating to Meter No. L-3126442, date of connection 21-01-2014, Reading: 000000, and Antyodaya Anna Yojana Ration Card No.2274201 in the name of Ramesh Bishwasharma, Marked Exhibit-6.
On the other hand 4 documents (unauthenticated/unsigned) filed for the O.P. No.1 as annexure ‘A’ to ‘D’ vide (1) ‘A' pre-charging report in connection with inspection dated 02-08-2013 by the WBSEDCL staff, (2) ‘B’ Memo No. KB/CCC/T-42/516, (3) ‘C’ Letter of Ramesh Bishwasharma to the Station Manager, Khagrabari CCC, (4) ‘D’ Application status in respect of Application No.4000238952 respectively are marked as annexure for identification and discussion of the contents.
ISSUES/POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Whether the complainant Mr. Ramesh Ch. Biswasharma is a ‘consumer’ of the three O.Ps, the ‘petition of complaint’ is a ‘complaint’ in terms of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986?
- Whether the matters stated in the petition amounts to ‘consumer disputes’ and if so what?
- Whether the O.Ps jointly/severally committed actionable negligence/deficiency in service to the complainant/in the process of proceedings before the Forums?
- Whether the complainant proved the complaint/allegations brought to light?
- Whether the O.Ps jointly/severally is liable to pay any cost to even after installation of the electric connection in the house of the complainant?
- Whether the complainant is liable for compensation/cost for any frivolous or vexatious complaint u/s 26 of the C. P. Act 1986?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief(s) as prayed in his complaint?
ISSUES/POINTWISE DECISION WITH REASON
Point No.1. Whether the complainant Mr. Ramesh Ch. Biswasharma is a ‘Consumer’ of the three O.Ps, the ‘petition of complaint’ is a ‘complaint’ in terms of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986?
From the discussion hereinbefore, it is transparent that by depositing the petition for new electric connection & paying the charges for such connection to the O.Ps the complainant Mr. Ramesh Ch. Biswasharma is obviously a ‘Consumer’ of three O.Ps, the ‘petition of complaint’ is a ‘complaint’ in terms of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 besides the O.Ps also did not disputed the same. Surprisingly the complainant made 3 official as the O.Ps whereas we transparently we find that the O.P.No.1 & 3 is the same and identical person and there is nothing on record that the O.P.No2 is any way a necessary party to the case. Unfortunately, the Ld. Adv. for the O.P.No.1 in this case has not whispered the issue at any point of time reason best known to him. However, without proceeding stereo-type, we decide that O.Ps 2 & 3 are not the necessary parties, though they are shown in Ex-Parte, as discussed, are entitled to get an order of dismissal with cost to the complainant payable to them.
Point No.2. Whether the matters stated in the petition amounts to ‘consumer disputes’ and if so what?
We have no hesitation to decide, from the fact & circumstances brought to light hereinbefore, that the matters stated in the petition amounts to ‘consumer disputes’ and it is deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.No.1 for not taking proper and adequate steps in connection with installation of electricity in the house of the complainant in inordinate delay creating enormous inconvenience, harassment and agony as it is evident on record which the O.P. No.1 failed to rebut.
Point No.3. Whether the O.Ps jointly/severally committed actionable negligence/ deficiency in service to the complainant/in the process of proceedings before the Forums?
From the discussion and decisions hereinbefore that the all the 3 O.Ps have not jointly/severally committed actionable negligence/deficiency in service to the complainant/in the process of proceedings before the Forums; but it is the sole O.P.No.1 who contributed the same, reasons whatsoever it may have been explained by him herein and he alone is therefore liable and none else.
Point No.4. Whether the complainant proved the complaint/allegations brought to light?
From the discussion hereinbefore we have reason to believe that the complainant proved the complaint/allegations in part as brought to light; but that also only against the O.P.No.1 and none else.
Point No.5. Whether the O.Ps jointly/severally is liable to pay any cost to even after installation of the electric connection in the house of the complainant?
From the discussion hereinbefore we have reason to believe that the complainant proved the complaint/allegations in part as brought to light; but that also only against the O.P.No.1 and not against the O.Ps jointly/severally. All of them are not liable to pay any cost. Only the O. P. No.1 is found liable to compensate the complainant, even after installation of the electric connection in the house of the complainant in the fact, circumstances and materials on record. Besides, he is also liable to compensate the Forum for taking 6 additional adjournments in different stages of proceedings by paying the exemplary punitive cost to deber him from such act of dilatory habit in other cases pending before this forum as has been mentioned in this case by the complainant & in other cases pending before this Forum.
Point No.6. Whether the complainant is liable for compensation/cost for any frivolous or vexatious complaint u/s 26 of the C. P. Act, 1986?
From the discussion hereinbefore, we do find that the complainant is liable to pay punitive cost for impleading the O.P.No.2 & 3 in the complaint, without any cause of action against them, may it be due to ignorance or otherwise and his aggressive attitude in the Forum during the proceedings but that does not prove that the complaint is frivolous or vexatious rather bringing the truth to light against and hence, he deserves suitable punitive cost payable to the State Consumer Welfare Fund but it does not deserve to dismiss the instant complaint.
Point No.7. Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief(s) as prayed in his complaint?
Finally, based on the materials and evidence on record we decide the case in favour of the complainant, we find it just for adjudication, not only to render justice but it is shown that justice has been done, by awarding reasonable compensation to the complainant by the O.P.No.1 and also to the Forum by way of punitive cost to the S.C.W.F, West Bengal by both the parties including the complainant, as discussed herein before at length, in contest.
ORDER
Hence, it is ordered,
That the case be and the same being maintainable is allowed in part. The O.P. No.1 is held liable for deficiency in service to the Complainant Mr. Ramesh Ch. Biswasarma who do get an award of (1) Rs.2,000/-towards litigation cost, (2) Rs.3,000 /-as compensation for harassment, mental agony, pain caused by the O.P.No.1.
Simultaneously, in terms of the provision of section 13(3A) of the C. P. Act, 1986 read with Regulation 11(3) & (4) and Regulation 13 of the C. P. Regulations, 2005 the complainant shall pay Rs. 1,000/-and the O.P.No.1 also shall pay Rs.1,000 /-towards punitive costs by depositing the amounts in the S.C.W.F, West Bengal.
Both the parties are directed to pay/cause the aforesaid awarded amount paid accordingly to the aforesaid Complainant/ S.C.W.F, West Bengal. within, 60 days from the date of this Final Order, failure of which the Ops shall pay @ Rs.50/- for each day’s delay on expiry of the aforesaid 60 days by depositing the accumulated amount, if any as such by depositing the same in the “State Consumer Welfare Fund, West Bengal’ above.
Let plain copy of this Final Order be supplied, free of cost, to the concerned party/ld. Advocate by hand/be sent under Registered Post with A/D forthwith for information and necessary action, as per Rule.
Dictated and corrected by me.
President President
District Consumer Disputes District Consume Disputes
Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar
Member Member
District Consumer Disputes District Consume Disputes
Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar
