IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No.CC 70/2017
Date of Filing: 03.05.2017. Date of Final Order:24.07.2018.
Complainant: Two Flower Eco Bricks ( A proprietorship Firm)
Rep. by Mr. Boni Yamin,
Vill. Mokimnagar, P.O. Moya
P.S. Lalgola, Dist. Murshidanad. Pin 742148.
-Vs-
Opposite Party: 1. Station Manager, Lalgola CCC, WBSEDCL,
Vill.& P.O. Lalgola, P.S. Lalgola, Dist. Murshidabad, Pin742148.
2. The Chief Engineer, WBSEDCL, Bidyut Bhawan, Sector-II,
Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700091.
3. The Regional Manager, WBSEDCL, Murshidabad Region,
P.O.& P.S. Murshidabad, Dist. Murshidabad, Pin 742149.
4. The Divisional Manager, WBSEDCL, Vill.&P.O. Jiaganj,
Dist. Murshidabad, Pin 742123.
Agent/Advocate for the Complainant : Sri Shibendra Narayan Sukul
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party : Sri Siddhartha Sankar Dhar.
Present: Sri Asish Kumar Senapati…………………. President.
Smt. Chandrima Chakraborty ……………………..Member.
FINAL ORDER
Sri Asish Kumar Senapati President.
This is a complaint U/S 12 of the C. P. Act, 1986.
One Two Flower Eco Bricks (herein after referred to as the complainant) filed the case against the Station Manager, Lalgola CCC, WBSEDCL and three others (herein after referred to as the OPs) alleging deficiency in service.
The sum and substance of the case is as follows:-
The complainant applied for new electric connection on 24.10.2013 and paid Rs.2,000/- as earnest money with a request for new electric connection having load capacity of 28,000 watt. The OP No.1 visited the premises of the complainant and issued a quotation on 19.8.15 asking the complainant to deposit Rs.1, 36,136/- towards Service Connection Charge and Security Deposit and the complainant deposited the same. In spite of receiving the said amount, the OPs neglected to give new electricity connection. The complainant approached the General Manager, D.I.C, Murshidabad who wrote a letter to the Regional Manager, WBSEDCL requesting him to look into the matter but of no result. The complainant , having financial assistance by taking term loan to the tune of Rs. 20,00,000/- and cash credit loan to the tune of Rs.24,77,000/- from the Oriental Bank of Commerce started the project with the expectation that electricity would be provided to the complainant. The complainant sustained a monetary loss of about Rs.16, 33,905/- . The cause of action arose on and from 19.08.2015 and lastly on 18.01.17.
The complainant prayed for a direction upon the OPs for compensation of Rs.17, 00,000/- and a litigation cost of Rs.50, 000/- and a direction upon the OPs to give effect to new electric connection to the complainant as per quotation dt. 19.08.15.
The OP No.1 filed Written Version on 23.06.17 contending that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant is not a consumer under the C. P. Act, 1986, that the petition is barred by Law of Limitation.
It is the specific case of the OP No.1 that the connection for which the complainant has applied for, is for a bricks field i.e for industrial connection which could not be for his own livelihood. The Brick Field is only for business purpose which involves number of employees. It is also the case of the OP No.1 that the OP issued a quotation on 19.08.2015 and on receipt of the quotational amount an erection order in favour of the M/S Salb Company for executing the work order. The said Agency went to the premises several times to execute the work but failed to do so due to the resistance raised by the villagers and the fact was intimated to the complainant vide Memo No. LGL/687 dated 03.12.15. Subsequently, the OP informed the complainant vide Memo No. LGL/1539 dated 22.11.16 that their Agency would execute the work on 24.11.16 at 11 A.M and the complainant was requested to be present on the spot physically and the letter was also forwarded to the B.D.O, Lalgola and the O.C, Lalgola P.S. On that day also the Agency could not execute the work due to resistance raised by the villagers and the representative of the complainant could not settle the dispute and a report was signed by the representatives of the complainant. The OP never neglected to effect the electric connection but due to resistance of the villagers and due to “Way Leave” problem, it could not be effected. There was/is no deficiency on the part of the OPs. The OP No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Upon pleadings of both sides, the following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case.
Points for Decision.
- Is the complainant a “consumer’ as per provisions of the C.P. Act, 1986?
- Has the Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?
- Has the OPs any deficiency in service, as alleged by the complainant?
- Is the complainant entitled to get relief/reliefs as prayed for?
Decision with Reasons.
Point No.1.
Ld. Advocate for the complainant submits that the complainant is a consumer under the OP as he applied for new electric connection by depositing earnest money and quotational amount for getting new electric connection in its name.
It is argued that the complainant, being the proprietor of Two Flower Eco Bricks, started under self-employment initiative with the help of financial assistance as certified by the D.I.C, Murshidabad . It is argued that the complainant is supposed to consume some electrical units for running his machinery and tools without any idea as a part of his business would resale those electrical units and accordingly the point of dispute regarding deficiency in service arising out of unnecessary delay in giving electric connection is purely a consumer dispute as the electricity consumption is not in any way related to commercial transaction , rather than item is likely to be consumed for self employment purpose.
It is urged that the contention of the OP No.1 is baseless. He argues that the complainant applied for new electric connection for running his bricks field business “for exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self employment.” It is urged that the General Manager DIC, Murshidabad issued a certificate dt. 16.01.18 stating that M/S Two Flower Eco Bricks is a self-employment initiative with the Bank finance from Oriental Bank of Commerce, Lalgola Branch. He also draws our attention to the decisions reported in IV(2014)CPJ 287 and (2009) III WBLR (SC) 321.
In reply the Ld. Advocate for the OP No.1 submits that the complainant is not a consumer in terms of Sec. 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C. P. Act, 1986. It is urged that the complainant applied for electric connection for running the Bricks Field namely Two Flower Eco Bricks. It is argued that the connection was for the purpose of industry and there is no way out to say that the Brick Field is not for commercial purpose. He further argues that the complainant has not even stated in its complaint that he hires the service of the OPs for consideration exclusively for the purposes of earning its livelihood by means of self employment. It is contended that the complainant has not even asserted that the eclectic connection applied for, was for the purpose of earning livelihood by means of self employment.
It is urged that the decisions referred by the Ld. Advocate for the complainant are not at all applicable. He argues that the decision reported in (2009)III WBLR(SC) 321 was passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court on an incident happened in 1992 and the ‘commercial purpose” has been includedin the definition of “consumer “ by an amendment of the C.P. Act in 2002 with effect from 15.03.2003.
Admittedly, the complainant , Two Flower Eco Bricks applied for new electric connection and the Op No.1 issued quotation and received earnest money and quotational money for giving new electric connection and the complainant applied for new electric connection for the purpose of running its machinery for production of bricks. The complainant has not even asserted in his Written Complaint that he applied for service of the OP electric connection for a consideration “exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of his self employment.” The complainant has only asserted in Para 5 of its Evidence that the project was sanctioned by the District Industrial Centre specifically as a self employment project of an unemployed youth.
Section 2(1)(d) of the C. P. Act 1986 defines “consumer”.
Section 2(1)(d)(ii) runs as follows:-
“Hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promises , or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose;
Explanation- For the purposes of this clause, “commercial purpose” does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him/her and services availed by him/her exclusively for the purposes of earning his/her livelihood by means of self-employment.”
In the present case, the complainant has not even asserted in its Written Complaint that the complainant applied for new electric connection exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. The complainant applied for a new electric connection for running its machineries in the Brick Field which is nothing but an industrial purpose. The OP No.1 has asserted in his Written Version that the complainant is not a “consumer” as the complainant applied for new electric connection for a Brick Field which cannot for his own livelihood.
With due regard to the decisions referred by the Ld. Advocate for the complainant, we find that the decisions referred by him are not at all applicable in the present case. We may rely on a decision passed by the Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No. 3191 of 2016 dated 3.5.18 against the Order of the State Commission, WB dated 08.09.16 passed in FA 57/16 arising in connection with Final Order passed in CC/131/15 of DCDRF, Murshidabded . The said decision was also in connection with a Bricks Field. The Hon’ble National Commission observed that the electric connection applied for was industrial connection , even if the electric connection was taken for earning livelihood , the complainant had nowhere explained that the activity undertaken by him is only means of earning his livelihood. In the said decision, the Hon’ble National Commission dismissed the Revision Petition of the complainant.
Considering every aspect, we have no hesitation to hold that the new electric connection as sough for, by the complainant was for commercial purpose and the complainant has not even asserted that the Bricks Field was exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment.
Hence, we have no hesitation to hold that the complainant failed to establish that he is “consumer” U/S 2(1) (d)(ii) of the C. P. Act, 1986.
Hence, this point is decided against the complainant.
Point Nos. 2,3 &4.
Ld. Advocate for the complainant submits that the OP has deficiency in service and the complainant is entitled to get adequate compensation and a direction may be passed against the OPs for not effecting a new electric connection as per quotation.
In reply the Ld . Advocate for the OP No.1 submits that the complainant has failed to prove that he is a “consumer” U/S 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C. P. Act, 1986.
We have already held that the complainant is not a “consumer” U/S 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C. P. Act, 1986.
We find no justification to go into the merit of Point Nos. 2,3 &4.
Hence, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief in this case.
In the result the complaint fails.
Reasons for Delay:-
This case was filed on 03.05.2017 and was admitted on 05.05.17. The OPs put their appearance and filed Written Version on 23.06.2017. This Forum tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible as per Section 13(3A) Of the C.P.Act, 1986. Reasons for delay have been explained in the day to day orders .
Fees paid are proper and correct.
Hence,
Ordered
that the Consumer Complaint No. 70/2017 be and the same is hereby dismissed on contest against the OP No.1 without cost and dismissed exparte against the rest without any 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.
