Date of Filing: 01.08.2013. Date of Final Order: 10.06.2014
The case of the complainant Shri Ratan Shil is that his application No.4000241084 for new connection was received by the WBSEDCL, Khagrabari Office. On 10-08-2012 Quotation Bill under Memo No.00241084/Quot/03 dated 03-06-2012, due date 01-09-2012, was received by him. He paid Earnest Money of Rs.200/-on 19-01-2012(No document enclosed). On 27-08-2012 he deposited Service Charge Rs.200/-, together with Rs.371/- as Security Deposit (Enclosed Money Receipts Serial No. Nos.A0909104 & A0909105 both dated 27-08-2012). He alleged that he, not getting the new electric connection, used to lodge complaints in Complaint Book at the Office of the Assistant Manager & Station Manager, Consumer Care Centre as the A.E. & Station Manager refused to receive his written complaint. At the advice of local respectable persons he lodged a complaint to Consumer Protection Office; but no solution could be achieved. He further alleged misbehavior by the staffs of the CCC Office, Khagrabari and also expressing his utter disagrees he stated that in threatening voice he was told, as to requirement of spending money to get New Connection and he was driven out there from, by the Station Manager. He has completed his internal wiring in his house; but till 01-08-2013 he did not get his electric connection and hence filed the instant petition of complaint through his (23-07-2012 dated appointed) Ld. Adv. Mr. Shirsendu Kumar Roy Basunia, to proceed with the case. The Ld. Adv. filed a petition to exempt the complainant from paying fees. He filed case on 01-08-2013 before this Forum, enclosing his affidavit before Notary Govt. of West Bengal, Cooch Behar but the signature of the declarant is not identified by any Advocate & Authorization Letter and a Xerox Copy of his BPL Ration Card No. BB231487 dated 29-08-06 against (1) Station Manager, Khagrabari Group Electricity Supply, WBSEDCL, Khagrabari, District- Cooch Behar, PIN -736101, (2) Divisional Engineer, WBSEDCL, Beguntari, P.O & District-Jalpaiguri, and (3) Assistant Engineer, WBSEDCL, Cooch Behar-‘D’ Division Group Electric Supply, Silver Jubili Road, P.O & District- Cooch Behar as Opposite Parties.
Based on which DF Case No.85 of 2013 was registered and after admission hearing, the complaint was admitted, fixing 23-08-2013 for S/R and appearance.
On 23-08-2013 the complainant was present through his Ld. Adv. On being appointed by the D.E & D.M, Cooch Behar, Ld. Adv. Mr. Drubajyoti Karmakar appeared for the O.P.No.1 who filed a petition for time to settle the dispute amicably and 17-09-2013 was fixed for the purpose & further order. On that date the complainant appeared in person. For the O.P.No.1 the Ld. Adv. filed a petition, enclosing Xerox copies of a letter dated 04-09-2013 addressed to the complainant stating that on 02-08-2013 the inspecting team detected non-compliance of the mandatory Pre-connection formalities by the complainant. Pre-Charging Report dated 02-08-2013 was made over to him with a direction to complete the works and inform the A.E. for effective service connection etc. and prayed for time to file W/V which was allowed fixing 03-10-2013. On that date the Ld. Adv. for the Complainant appeared. The Ld. Adv. for the O.P took time to file W/V but as there was want of quorum no adverse order was passed but 10-10-2013 was fixed for W/V or reporting of settlement. On that date also the Ld. Adv. for the O.P. filed a petition stating non-compliance of internal wiring formalities by the complainant for installing new connection. The Ld. Adv. for the complainant appeared; but not replied. On hearing both side Ld. Advocates the O.P. was directed to take positive steps towards new connection fixing 07-11-2013 for reporting of settlement.
On 07-11-2013 the Ld. Adv. for the O.P. filed a petition stating that on 25-10-2013 the site was inspected and found that the house of the complainant situated in between New Railway Track & High Way at 20 feet high for which infra-structural works require and the contractor also has been informed for the work. The Ld. Adv. for the complainant simply appeared by filing his attendance but remained silent. On 06-12-2013 also for the O.P time was taken, stating that the contractor has been instructed to take steps but the complainant remained absent without step. On 27-12-2013 the complainant filed a petition, enclosing a Xerox copy of Driving Licence of one Utpal Kr. Ray, for permission to authorize Shri U.K. Ray, who also filed his attendance for proceeding with the case. For the O.P, his Ld. Adv. filed a petition stating some problems and prayed for 2 months time and for want of quorum 30-12-2013 was fixed for passing order. On that date also Shri Ray filed his attendance so also Ld. Adv. for the O.P. He verbally submitted for 3 months time for completion of formalities & 28-02-2014 was fixed for power connection. On 28-02-14 the Ld. Adv. for the O.P, enclosing a copy of the letter to the complainant of the A.E. & Station Manager, Khagrabari CCC, WBSEDCL dated 25-02-2014 which speaks that the existing premises is located in a valley like position in between Rail way track, Ghargharia River & Alipurduar bound road where pole erection is difficult as WBSEDCL cannot extend Power line close to railway line without permission of Railway Authority. For road crossing arrangement necessary infrastructure would have to be created for arresting chances of accident & line material from being damaged by speeding vehicle for which cost approval is required from competent authority. He contended for option either to opt by the complainant to take refund of the deposits or wait till such arrangements for execution of service connection as a very special case are made. On the other hand an unsigned attendance & an unsigned petition in the name of the complainant appears in record reflecting so many matters alleging against the O.P & the Forum in respect of DF Case No. 75/2013 of Mr. Nayan Singha, Case No. DF-76/2013 of Mr. Ramesh Ch. Biswasharma and DF-82/2013 of Kularanjan Kar, besides, the instant case, in spite of assurance on different dates by the O.P. not comply with the assurance experienced same misbehavior, admitting that the complainant resides beside the High Road between Cooch Behar & Alipurduar (District- Jalpaiguri), alleging serious negligence in service and unfair trade practices by the respondents in this case. Finally prayed for direction to the respondents to provide electric connection within a week with due compensation as claimed in his petition of complaint in case no. 85/2013.
On that date for the complainant time was prayed for to file W/V and it was allowed fixing 28-03-2014. Of course, on that date W/V of Mr. Tapas Kr. Sinha A.E & S.M, CCC, Khagrabari, WBSEDCL, was filed by his Ld. Adv. for the O.P.No.1, after supplying copy to the complainant who was present in person, by filing attendance under his signature, as to receive it. That 25-04-2014 was fixed for evidence of both sides along with original documents, relied on by the respective parties in contest, incorporating the text in evidence on affidavit for marking Exhibits.
On 25-04-2014 Affidavit on Evidence by the complainant Shri Ratan Shil aged 49 years was filed, enclosing 8 xerox copies of unsigned/unauthenticated documents numbering Document-1 to 8.For the O.P. No.1 Mr. Tapas Kumar Sinha through his Ld. Adv. filed his Evidence on Affidavit without any document as enclosure. 16-05-2014 was fixed for filing the written argument by the O.P.No.1 and argument by the complainant. On that date written argument of the complainant was filed in 6 pages with some documents under a List Of Documents admitted in Evidence were filed by the complainant under his signature and marked forthwith as Exhibits 1 to 5 respectively whereas, the Ld. Adv. for the O.P.No.1 filed a time petition to file his written argument on the next date. The prayer was allowed fixing 27-05-2014 for filing Written Argument, in default, exemplary cost. On that date, of course the Ld. Adv. for the O.P.No.1 in spite filing his written argument in 3 pages without supplying copy to the complainant, offered Rs. 100/- to the complainant towards cost; but it was refused by the complainant by a petition to pay Rs.500/- as exemplary cost and not Rs.100/- as nominal cost.
We, considering all aspects as fact, circumstance, materials on record, we fixed 10-06-2014 for passing the Final Order.
Let us look into the Written Version of the O.P.No.1. On perusal, scrutiny and appreciation of salient points it appears that materials on record have been admitted and assailed that on 02-0802013 a team of WBSEDCL visited the spot and on inspection found that the mandatory formalities like earthling, internal wiring, main switch have not been done. The complainant was directed by Memo No. KB/CCC/T-42/576 dated 04-09-2013 to do the same by handing over a copy of Inspection Report on 02-08-2013 at the spot, with further direction to inform compliance to the O.P.No.1; but in vain. In Memo No. KB /CCC/T-42/1385 dated 25-02-2014, the complainant has been informed that his premises located in a valley position in between railway track, Ghargharia river and Alipuduar bound road where pole erection work is seemingly difficult and on the ground of safety WBSEDCL cannot extend power line close to railway line without prior permission of railway authority besides, necessary infrastructure to be created for arresting chances of accident and line material from being damaged by speedy vehicle for which cost approval is required from the competent authority. He has also been requested as to further delay in solving the same and at that event he may either withdraw the deposited amounts or wait till such arrangements for execution of service connection is made as a very special case. In view of above the O.P.No.1 claimed that he has no intention to delay/negligence in his effort to provide the electric connection in the house of the complainant. Finally, he has prayed for dismissing the present complaint.
In his evidence also stated alike matters but just adding that: “This is true to my knowledge” and that he is not anyway liable for negligence/deficiency in service to the complainant, as the problems are not within his control and in spite of his best efforts he could not provide the said electric connection to the complainant.
The complainant also narrated the entire episode of his grievances in his evidence dated 16-05-2014, stating right from the petition of complaint to the matters of the neighboring people requirements, malpractice of the O.Ps, discrimination. He also referred, even to his other different petitions, replies of the O.P No.1, before the Forum and tried his level best to prove the serious negligence in service, discrimination and unfair trade practice of the O.Ps in different Para, in different ways and also expressed the similar misbehavior of Office of the O.P.No.1 by Complainants (1) Mr. Nayan Singha(DF-75/2013), (2) Mr. Ramesh Ch. Biswasharma (DF-76/2013), (3) Mr. Kularanjan Kar (DF-82/2013), violation of assurance at the time of filing application of new connections, in defamatory languages and what not. He has assailed that more than 9 months passed since his filing the case in the Forum; but not disposed of yet rather process of justice followed demoralized him because of delay & undue favour towards the opposite parties by Ld. Forum in allowing the respondents to file written version six months later without cost. Finally, he has prayed for determine his allegations and pass order for his immediate electricity connection in his house and grant all the demands made in the plaint of this case.
The written argument was filed by the complainant, though he was not bounded by the regulation himself to file until & unless the case is conducted by a Ld. Advocate., it appears almost replica of his petition of complaint and his evidence taking together. For the O.P.No.1 no written argument filed by his Ld. Adv. which is violation of the Regulation 13 of the C. P. Regulations, 2005, mandatorily calls for imposing cost at the same rate like cost imposed in case of adjournments and hence not discussed herein detail.
In spite of receipt the Notice on 02-08-2013 under seal & Signature took no step till date and it is transparent that the A.E. is the rank I.A.S, I.P.S, I.F.S, W.B.C.S, W.B.C.S. (Ex.) W.B.A. & A S. etc. in administrative Posts and the Station Manager is the Post he held in the Khagrabari, CCC of WBSEDCL so it is needless to make such 2 parties herein the present case. There is no such addressee as A.E in the above Office, so far it revealed from the submission of the Ld. Adv. for the O.P. No.1. The Ld. Adv. though was appointed by the O.P.No.2, to appear on behalf of the WBSEDCL in the matter of D.F.85/2013 Ratan Shil –VS- S.M. Khagrabari, CCC WBSEDCL he in spite of pointing out the same, stated that he has no instruction as such and he took steps for the O.P.No.1 only. We feel it pertinent in the context of the present case that the O.P.No.2 not only a necessary party but the vital & prime party as the infrastructural matters as stated by the O.P.No.1 is beyond his authority to arrange electrification in the area of the complainant as stated & discussed at length herein before in the perspective of the fact, circumstances and materials on record. Hence, O.P No.2 is treated as the Ex-Parte and O.P.No.3 is expunged in this case by the Forum.
Now, we find that Issues/Points in the instant case should be framed befitting to the case. Accordingly, framed herein below as:
ISSUES/POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Whether the complainant is a ‘consumer’ of the O.Ps. If so, how?
- What are the Consumer Disputes?
- Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain & try the instant case?
- Whether the O.Ps contributed negligence/deficiency in service to the complainant and liable to compensate? If so, to whom and to what extent?
- Whether the complainant has proved his case and if so, is he entitled to get relief(s) as prayed for, or to what extent?
- Whether the complainant/Opposite Parties has any liability to compensate u/s 13(3A) read with Regulations 11(3), 11(4)/13(3) of the C. P. Regulations, 2005?
DECISSION WITH REASONS
Point No.1. Whether the complainant is a ‘Consumer’ of the O.Ps. If so, how?
From the discussion hereinbefore, it is transparent that the complainant deposited some money towards electric connection charge, security deposit as per quotation under receipt so he is undoubtedly consumer of the O.Ps.
Point No.2. What are the Consumer Disputes?
The complainant, in spite of deposit of the above money for the new electric connection at his house it was not provided since 27-08-2013 or thereafter till date of filing the complaint i.e. 01-08-2013,inspite of persuasion, filing complaint to the consumer protection office and thereafter lodging the instant case before this Forum, un till now i.e. 10-06-2014.
Point No.3. Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain & try the instant case?
The Office & Place of Business of the O.P.No.1 is within the district of Cooch Behar and of the O.P.No.2 is within the district of Jalpaiguri. The value of the case is Rs.82,000/-i.e. within the limit of Rs.20,000,00/-. So, this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain & try the instant case.
Point No.4. Whether the O.Ps contributed negligence/deficiency in service to the complainant and liable to compensate? If so, to whom and to what extent?
The materials on record, evidence of both sides, Exhibits marked, admitted fact is that in spite of receipt of consideration the O.P failed to install electrification in the house of the complainant even after 21 months, may it be the infrastructural deficiency on the part of the O.Ps or matter of government policy & fund therein and or the area is a valley like village and there is requirement to obtain prior permission from the railway authority or the PWD/CPWD/Highway Division Road what steps have been taken by the O.Ps is not transparent to the Forum. It is the headache of the O.Ps and not of the consumer in the eye of law; but law is for the people and people is not for the law and though we are dealing with Consumer Protection that does not mean that opposite Party would be un protected and victim of the fact and circumstance. Surprisingly, the negligence, inaction led the O.Ps contribution of deficiency in service to the complainant. Now, we to consider how far and to what extent damage, mental agony, harassment caused to the complainant by the O.Ps. We find that the petitioner is a BPL Ration Card holder i.e. having his meager income and he is residing in the village from 2006, so far, and he could not even complete the mandatory internal wiring, main meter, earthling etc as a pre-condition of charging electric line than wherefrom the claims arises as to the claim that for want of not having new electric connection in his house the members of his family got mentally ill. How he passed his days prior to the said application for New Electric Connection in, 2012. Besides, as to his financial condition he stated that he is a poor man working as a agricultural daily labour. On being asked he stated that he cannot read or write Bengali/English and he does not know what has been written in Bengali in the petition of complaint or evidence/written argument and/or other petitions written by Mr. Utpal Kr. Ray. He signed in Bengali as told by Shri Utpal Ray and he does not know the contents of those, whatever has been done by Utpal Roy. He admitted that in his village there is no electric line and to take the line to his village/his house there would require 5/6 big iron pole from the existing electric pole line. He simply stated for electric connection at his house at the earliest possible. He had no allegation and what is written throughout was the brain child of Mr. Utpal Kr. Ray we perceive. We also find that it is hardly possible to believe that the O.Ps are free from alleged misbehavior with the customers, preparing incorrect bills without meter reading, disconnecting existing line on various pretext, indulging/encouraging power theft, installing electric connection contrary to the provisions of the Electricity Act, Rules Regulations, Directives of the Regulatory Authority for illegal gain and what not, are open secret. May whatever it be, in the instant case, considering all aspects we find the O.P.No.1 & 2 liable for negligence/deficiency in service towards the complainant and hence liable for reasonable & adequate compensation.
Point No.5. Whether the complainant has proved his case and if so, is he entitled to get relief(s) as prayed for, or to what extent?
From the discussion it can be safely said that the complainant has proved his case to some extent he is entitled to get relief(s) not as prayed for, but to the reasonable extent.
Point No.6. Whether the Complainant/Opposite Parties has any liability to compensate u/s 13(3A) read with Regulations 11(3), 11(4)/13(3) of the C. P. Regulations, 2005?
From the discussion hereinbefore, it is transparent that both the parties i.e. the complainant/Opposite Parties have contributed negligence; but the complainant is not liable to compensate u/s 13(3A) read with Regulations 11(3), 11(4)/13(3) of the C. P. Regulations, 2005 as he was absent without step once on 06-12-2013; but the O.P.No1 is liable for compensation u/s 13(3A) read with Regulations 11(3), 11(4)/13(3) of the C. P. Regulations, 2005 as he took adjournments 23-08-13, 17-09-13, 03-10-13,10-10-13, 07-11-13, 06-12-13, 30-12-2013, 28-02-14 for filing W/V on various grounds and filed it on 28-03-14 and filed his written argument. So, the complainant has taken no adjournment whereas, for the O.P.No.1 more than one adjournments were taken during the entire proceedings. Further we do observe that the Ld. Adv. for the O.P. No.1 has reasonably taken the adjournments to make Ld. Forum apprised of the time to time development of the process of providing the electric connection in the house of the complainant even on sympathetic/compassionate ground which is a good conscience but failed. The point here is that at the first visit of the Team of the O.P.No.1 when visited the spot on 02-08-2013 i.e. after filing the case and inspected the site what prevented him to file the W/V on the date of appearance i.e. on 23-08-2013 or soon thereafter incorporating the entire episode as intimated by him to the complainant on 04-09-2013 & 15-04-2014 as regards to the incomplete mandatory works by the complainant and in regards to the difficulty to install the electric connection in the house of the complainant being his house in a valley like position and requirement of prior permission of the railway authority/arrangement of infrastructure etc. respectively. Had it been so the Forum had no occasion to allow so many adjournments without even without cost and for which the complainant could blame the Forum favouring the O.Ps taking sympathy of the O.Ps as favouritism against which is not appreciable either for the parties in litigation or for the Forum itself. The law should take it’s own course. Likewise the offering the money Rs.100/- by the Ld. Adv. for the O.P.to the complainant and it’s refusal to accept by the complainant by a petition, even if it be at the instant/instigation of said Mr. Utpal Kr. Ray, demanding Rs. 500/- as exemplary cost instead of Rs.100/- is neither tenable nor acceptable. It shows carelessness of both the parties in contest as the order speaks in default of filing the Written Argument for the O.P.No.1 and no cost was imposed as the said written version was filed in the meantime by the Ld. Adv. for the O.P.No.1. It shows greed of the complainant and carelessness of the Ld. Adv. for the O.P.No.1.With a view to decide the case on merit and keeping in view as cost 10-06-2014 was fixed for Final Order. The O.P.No.1 is held liable to a reasonable punitive cost for taking 7 adjournments to file W/V only u/s 13 of the C. P. Act, 1986.
ORDER
Therefore, it is ordered that the complaint be and the same be succeed in part and Mr. Ratan Shil do get Rs.1,500/-, as an award towards compensation for deficiency in service by the concerned O.P. No.1 i.e. the Assistant Engineer & Station Manager, Khagrabari, CCC, WBSEDCL, & O.P. No.2 i.e. Divisional Engineer, West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, Beguntari, P.O & District-Jalpaiguri, in view of lack of supervision in the present infrastructure of the WBSEDCL leading to deprivation of the downtrodden residence of the so called valley area, who are directed to pay the amount jointly and/or severally within 60 days from this date of order to Mr. Ratan Shil, in default he shall pay at the rate of Rs.100/- jointly and/or severally for each day’s delay, if any, by depositing the same in the “State Consumer Welfare Fund, West Bengal”.
The O.P. No.1 alone shall also pay Rs.500/- within said period for non-compliance of the orders during the proceedings and assailing various contemptuous baseless allegations and misbehavior in the Ld. Forum, failure of which proceedings u/s 25/27 of the C.P. Act, 1986 would follow. The said amount shall be deposited in the “State Consumer Welfare Fund”.
However, considering all the aspects in the instant case the O.Ps are directed to take proper and adequate steps for installation of the electric connection in the house of the complainant Mr. Ratan Shil, at the earliest possible, subject to fulfillment of the pre-conditions of internal wiring and related factors and obviously in terms of the provisions of Electricity Act, Rules, Regulations and Directives of the concerned Regulatory Authority.
Let plain copy of this order be made available and be supplied, free of cost, to the parties on contest by hand/ by registered post with A/D forthwith as per rules, for information and necessary action.
Dictated and corrected by me.
President President
District Consumer Disputes District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar
Member Member
District Consumer Disputes District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar. Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar.
