IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.

             CASE No.  CC/7/2017.

 Date of Filing:                    Date of Admission:                Date of Disposal:

20.01.17                                        20.03.17                                     01.10.19

Complainant: Kanai Das

S/O- Late Panchanan Das,

Ayeshbagh, PO- Roshanbagh,

 PS- Murshidabad,

Pin- 742164

-Vs-

Opposite Party: 1. Station Manager, WBSEDCL, Lalbagh 

PO & PS- Murshidabad,

Pin- 742149

   2. Asim Das

S/O- Lt. Panchanan Das, Ayeshbagh,

Srishnagar, PO- Roshanbagh,

PS- Murshidabad,

Pin- 742164

Agent/Advocate for the Complainant                        : Sri. Jagannath Bhattacharjee.

Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1 : Sri. S.S. Dhar.

Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party No.2 : Smt Bidishya Sarkar

                       Present:   Sri Asish  Kumar Senapati………………….......President.                              

                                          Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………..Member.

                                     FINAL ORDER

  Asish Kumar Senapati, Presiding Member.

            One Kanai Das (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against the Station Manager, WBSEDCL, Lalbagh and another (here in after referred to as the OPs) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.

  The sum and substance of the complaint case is as follows:-

            The Complainant is a consumer of electricity under the OP No.1 having consumer ID No. R/D/9945 and consumer serial No. M-505655. The Complainant has been using electricity on payment of electric bills  regularly. All on a sudden, the Complainant came to know that the OP No.1 transferred the service connection of the Complainant in the name of his brother Asim Das, OP No.2 and sent the electric bills to the OP No.2. The Complainant repeatedly requested the OP No.1 to check the electric connection in his name again but of no result. Hence, the Complainant has filed the case against the OPs with a direction upon the OP No.1 to check the electric connection in the name of the Complainant and for a direction to sent electric bills to the Complainant after changing the connection in his name. He also prays for compensation of Rs.20,000/- for unnecessary harassment, professional loss and mental pain.

            The OP No.1 contested the case by filing written version on 19.07.17 contending that the case is not maintainable and it is the specific case of the OP No.1 that there are two separate connections in the name of the Complainant vide consumer No. M505655 and consumer ID No.312135901 and in name of the OP No.2, Asim Das having consumer No. M507940 and consumer ID No. 312058487. There is no change of name of electric connection of the Complainant in the name of the OP No.2. So, the complaint is liable to be rejected.

            The OP No. 2 also contested the case by filing written version on 18.08.17 contending that the case is not maintainable. It is the case of the OP No.2 that the OP No.2 has been using electric connection since 26.11.99 on payment of electric bills and the Complainant has filed the case with a view to lower down the prestige of the OP No.2 before public. The OP No.2 also prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.

            On the basis of the above version the following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case :

Points for consideration

1. Isthe Complainant a consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?

2. Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?

3. Has the OP No.1 any deficiency in service, as alleged?

4. Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?

Point no.1

The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the Complainant is a consumer as he hired services of the OP No.1  for consideration.

On going through the complaint, written version and other materials on record and on a careful consideration over the submission of both sides, we find that the Complainant is a consumer in terms of section 2 (I )(d) (ii) of the C.P.Act, 1986.

Point No.2

The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and the claimed amount is also within pecuniary limit of the District Forum.

On a careful consideration over the materials on record, we find that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and this Forum has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

Point Nos.3&4

The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the OP No.1 has changed the electric connection of the Complainant in the name of the OP No.2 without any reason. He prays for a direction upon the OP No.1 for changing the name of electric connection in the name of the Complainant again and for compensation of Rs.20,000/- for unnecessary harassment, professional loss and mental agony.

In reply, the Ld. Advocate for the OP No.1 submits that there are two separate connections in the names of the Complainant and the OP No.2. He argues that the OP No.1 never changed the electric connection of the Complainant vide consumer ID No. 312135901 in the name of the O.P. No. 2. He submits that the OP No.2 has been enjoying electricity having his consumer ID No. 312058487 and the OP No.1 never changed the service connection of the Complainant in the name of the OP No.2. It is urged that the OP No.1 has no deficiency in service and the complaint may be dismissed.

Ld. Advocate for the O.P.No. 2 submits that the complainant has filed the case with a view to malign the O.P. No.2 before public. She prays for dismissal of the case with cost.

Perused written complaint, written version, evidence of the Complainant and the documents filed by both sides. It appears from the written version of the OP No.1 that there are two separate electric connections in the names of the Complainants, Kanai Das and the OP No. 2, Asim Das and there are two separate consumer numbers and consumer ID numbers of two separate connections. The Complainant has not filed any scrap of paper to establish that the OP No.1 has changed the electric connection having consumer ID Number of the Complainant in the name of the OP No.2.

On a careful consideration, we find that the Complainant has failed to establish any deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1. Hence, we think that the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief in this case.

Reasons for delay

The Case was filed on 20.01.17 and admitted on 20.03.17 . This Forum tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act,1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day orders.

Fees paid are correct.

In the result, the complaint case fails, Hence it is

                                    ORDERED

that the complaint Case No. CC/7/2017 be and the same is hereby dismissed on contest against the OPs without cost.

          Let plain copy of this order  be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand  /by post under proper acknowledgment  as per rules, for information and necessary action.

The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:

    confonet.nic.in

    Dictated & corrected by me.

          President

Member                                                                                         President.