DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 0144
C.C. CASE NO. _44_ OF ___2017
DATE OF FILING : 4.4.2017 DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT: 8.6.2018_
Present : President : Ananta Kumar Kapri
Member(s) : Subrata Sarker
COMPLAINANT : Smt. Laxmi Ghosh, wife of late Chintamoni Ghosh, Vill. + P.O Kalikapur, P.S Sonarpur, Dist. South 24-Parganas, Pin-743330
O.P/O.Ps : Station Manager, WBSEDCL, Champahati CCC, P.O Champahati, P.S Baruipur, Pin-743330
_______________________________________________________________________
J U D G M E N T
Sri Ananta Kumar Kapri, President
The brief facts leading to the filing of the instant complaint by the complainant are that complainant is a senior citizen aged about 65 years . She applied for new electric connection on 8.4.2014. Work order was also issued by the O.P-1 on 16.4.2014 . But no connection was given by the O.P to the complainant as yet. All attempts and persuasions by the complainant have ended in smoke due to adamantine attitude of the O.P. Now, the complainant prays for new electric connection, compensation etc. Hence, this case.
The O.P has been contesting the case by filing written version of his statement, wherein it is contended inter alia that quotation money was deposited by the complainant for a new connection. But upon an on- the- spot enquiry it was found that there is already an electric connection in the same premises in the name of Biswanath Ghosh, son of the complainant. The intention of the complainant is to split the existing load and, therefore, in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 14 of West Bengal Regulatory Commission ( Recovery of Expenditure for Providing New Connection) Regulation, 2013, the application of the complainant for new connection has been rejected and the fact of rejection of her application has already been intimated to the complainant by letter dated 14.5.2014,whereby the complainant was asked to withdraw the quotation money . But the complainant has not acted accordingly in response to the letter dated 14.5.2014. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P and the case is, therefore, be dismissed in limini with cost.
Upon the averments of the parties following points are formulated for consideration.
POINT FOR DETERMINATION
- Is the O.P guilty of deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant?
- Is the complainant entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for ?
EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES
Evidence on affidavit is filed by the complainant. Written statement filed by the O.P is treated as their evidence, vide their petition dated 13.9.2017.
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point no.1 & 2 :-
Already heard the submissions of Ld. Lawyers appearing for the parties. Perused the complaint, written version of statement filed by the O.Ps and the evidences adduced by the parties. Considered all these.
It is undisputed fact that the complainant filed an application for new electric connection before the O.P on8.4.2014. No new electric connection has yet been given to the complainant, although the complainant has complied all the formalities of the electric department. She has deposited the quotation money in terms of the quotation supplied by the O.P. Work order was also issued by the O.P, as is evident from the endorsement made on the quotation filed herein by the complainant. The said work order bears no. 2428125 dated 16.4.2014. Despite issue of work order, electric connection has not been given to the complainant . The reason assigned by the O.P is that the complainant intended to split the load and, therefore, the application was rejected in view of Regulation 14 of West Bengal Regulatory Commission ( Recovery of Expenditure for Providing New Connection) Regulation, 2013.
Let us see now whether the said Regulation is applicable to this case of the complainant and whether the O.P has acted properly in compliance of that Regulation.
First of all, we make it clear that whenever the quotation money is deposited by the intending consumer of electricity in pursuance of the quotation given by the O.P, the contract comes into existence and both the parties are required to act in conformity with the terms of that contract. So, as soon as a contract comes into existence ,none of the parties to the contract can go backfrom the terms of the contract ; they will have to comply with the terms of the saidcontract.
In the instant case, the O.P has acted in conformity with the terms of the said contract and in conformity thereof, an work order has already been issued by the O.P and before issuing such work order the O.P also made an on the spot enquiry. If the O.P was of the opinion that the complainant intended to split the existing load, he could have taken proper steps in accordance with the Regulation 14 at that time i.e before issuing the quotation and also the work order. The issuance of quotation and work order of the O.P implies and implies that he was satisfied to the effect that complainant was entitled to get new electric connection and this being so, the rejection of the application subsequently on the plea that Regulation 14 stands on the way of giving new connection to the complainant, is nothing but an excuse adopted by the O.P. Regulation 14 as referred to above has no application at this stage, especially when the work order has been issued by the O.P after having done on the spot enquiry and acceptance of quotation money.
To invoke Regulation 14 there is procedure laid down within that Regulation. An opportunity of being heard is required to be given to the complainant to prove that the new connection is not intended for splitting of load. There is no averment in the written statement to the effect that such opportunity of being heard was ever given to the complainant. It is only stated in the written statement that a letter dated 14.5.2014 was sent to the complainant and thereby she was asked to withdraw the quotation money deposited by her. The issuance of this letter is not in accordance with the Regulation 14.
Regards being had to all these, we feel constrained to say that the Regulation 14 has been invoked by the O.P only to cover up his deficiency in service for not giving new electric connection to the complainant so long. Negligence to give new electric connection to the complainant after having received the quotation money from her is undoubtedly a glaring example of deficiency in service and, therefore, the O.P will have to compensate the complainant for this reason.
In the result, the case succeeds.
Hence,
ORDERED
That the complaint case be and the same is decreed on contest against the O.P with cost of Rs.5000/- to be paid to the complainant by the O.P.
The O.P is directed to give new electric connection to the house of the complainant within 15 days from the date of this order and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant for harassment and mental agony caused to a senior citizen like the complainant , within the aforesaid period ,failing which the compensation amount and the amount of cost as referred to above will bear interest @12% p.a till full realization thereof.
Let a free copy of this order be given to the parties concerned at once.
President
I / We agree
Member Member
Dictated and corrected by me
President
