IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC/153/2017.
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
12.09.17 16.10.17 03.09.19
Complainant: Josef Ali,
S/o Motin Sk
Vill-Milki Palashi, PO-Chanak,
PS-Nabagram,
Dist-Murshidabad, Pin-742184
-Vs-
Opposite Party: 1. The Station Manager,
Nabagram Customer Care Centre,
WBSEDCL, PO&PS-Nabagram,
Dist-Murshidabad
Pin-742184.
2. The Regional Manager,
WBSEDCL, Administrative Building
Cantonment Road,
PO&PS-Berhampore,
Dist-Murshidabad
Pin-742101.
Agent/Advocate for the Complainant : Sri. Nilanjan Pandey.
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1 : Sri. Siddhartha Sankar Dhar.
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party No.2 None.
Present: Sri Asish Kumar Senapati………………….......President.
Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………..Member.
FINAL ORDER
This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.
One Josef Ali (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against the Station Manager, WBSEDCL, Nabagram CCC 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 and he used to have a temporary electricity connection for agricultural purpose from 2013 on payment of usual charges. The Complainant also applied for temporary electricity connection on 30.11.16 for the year 2016 by filing relevant documents and after due consideration the OP No.1 issued a letter dated 07.12.16 with a direction for compliance of further step and the Complainant was asked to deposit earnest money of Rs.200/-. The Complainant deposited earnest money of Rs.200/- on 21.12.16 and the OP after consideration of all documents received Rs.12,350/- along with Rs.800/- on 09.02.17 for temporary electricity charges payable for the period of 3 months but unfortunately, the OP No.1 disconnected the temporary electric connection within one month without any prior intimation or notice to the complainant and on enquiry the Complainant came to know that certain amount was due in the name of Motin Sk, father of the Complainant. Ultimately, the Complainant was compelled to pay Rs.90,000/- and Rs.100/- without any fault of his own on 10.03.17 to save the local cultivators. The OP No.1 has deficiency in service. The Complainant prayed for a direction upon the OP No.1 for refund of Rs.90,100/- forcibly collected from the Complainant along with interest and for compensation for damages due to mental pain, agony and harassment.
The OP No.1 contested the case by filing written version on 03.01.18 contending that the case is not maintainable and the Complainant is not a consumer. The Complainant denied the allegation of illegal disconnection of electricity. It is the specific case of the OP No.1 that the Petitioner applied for a temporary STW connection on 30.11.16 and after compliance of all formalities, it was given to the Complainant but subsequently, it had come to the knowledge of the OP that Abdul Motin,father of the complainant, bearing consumer ID No. 313094077 had an outstanding dues of Rs.90,000/- and the STW connection was disconnected for non-payment of outstanding dues of Abdul Motin. The Complainant took the electric connection on temporary basis by suppressing the fact of outstanding dues of his father. Subsequently, Abdul Motin paid his outstanding dues and the electricity connection of the Petitioner has been restored. The Petitioner used the STW for commercial purposes. So, the complaint is liable to be rejected.
The O.P. No. 2 did not contest the case in spite of service of notice.
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. Have the OPs 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 she hired services of the OPs for consideration.
The Ld. Advocate for the O.P. No.1 has not argued on this point.
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. Both the points are thus disposed of.
Point Nos.3&4
The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the Complainant paid Rs.12,350/- and Rs.800/- on 09.12.17 for getting temporary STW connection and he was compelled to pay Rs.90,000/- as outstanding dues of his father, Motin Sk and Rs.100/- as reconnection charge on 10.03.17 for reconnection of his STW connection. It is urged that the Complainant was compelled to pay Rs.90,000/- as his service connection was disconnected in spite of the fact that he paid Rs.12,350/- on 09.02.17 for temporary connection for three months. It is urged that the Complainant is entitled to get compensation for deficiency in service and he is also entitled to get the refund of Rs. 90,000/-paid by him in compelling circumstances.
In reply, the Ld. Advocate for the OP No.1 submits that the Complainant took STW connection on 09.02.17 on payment of Rs.12,350/- by suppressing the fact of outstanding dues of his father, Motin Sk and the service connection was restored on 10.03.17 on receipt of outstanding dues of Rs.90,000/- and reconnection charge of Rs.100/-. He submits that the OP No.1 has no deficiency in service and the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief.
Perused the written complaint, written version, evidence of the Complainant and the documents filed by the Complainant.
Admittedly, the Complainant got an STW connection after observing necessary formalities on payment of Rs.12,350/- along with Rs.800/- as temporary electric charges for 3 months on 09.02.17 and the electric connection was disconnected about 1 month after getting connection on the plea that an outstanding amount of Rs.90,000/- was due in respect of Motin Sk, father of the complainant. We find that the Complainant/ Motin Sk paid the outstanding due of Rs.90,000/- and Rs.100/- as reconnection charges on 10.03.17. It is the argument of the Ld. Advocate of the OP No.1 that the Complainant took the temporary STW connection on 09.02.17 by suppressing the fact that there was outstanding dues in the name of his father, Motin Sk. The OP No.1 gave the temporary STW connection to the Complainant on 09.02.17 on receiving the amount of Rs.12,350/- and Rs.800/- but the STW connection was disconnected before 10.03.17 and the connection was restored on 10.03.17 on payment of outstanding dues of Rs.90,000/- and reconnection charge of Rs.100.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we think that disconnection of the temporary STW connection in the name of the Complainant before the term without serving notice upon the complainant is not reasonable and justified. We think that the OP No. 1 has deficiency in service as it was the duty of the OP No.1 to verify the document before giving temporary STW connection to the complainant and in case of any fault on the part of the complainant, the OP No. 1 ought to have serve notice for disconnection upon the complainant .
We think that the Complainant is entitled to get refund of the 2/3rd of the amount paid by the Complainant for his temporary STW connection for 3 months as he enjoyed the STW connection for only 1 month in lieu of 3 months.
We find that the Complainant paid Rs.200/- on 21.12.16 and Rs.12,350/- and Rs.800/- on 09.02.17 for his temporary STW connection. Therefore, the Complainant is entitled to get 2/3rd of total amount of Rs.13,350/- from the OP No. 1. We also think that the Complainant is entitled to get litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-against the OP No.1.
Reasons for delay
The Case was filed on 12.09.17 and admitted on 16.10.17 . 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 succeeds. Hence, it is
ORDERED
that the Complaint Case No. CC/153/2017 be and the same is hereby allowed on contest against the OP No.1 with litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- and dismissed on contest against the OP No.2 without cost.
The OP No. 1 is directed to pay Rs.8,900/-i.e. 2/3rd of the amount paid by the Complainant for his temporary STW connection for 3 months to the complainant by sixty days from the date of this order .
The OP No. 1 is also directed to pay Rs.1,000/- to the complainant as litigation cost by sixty days from the date of this order .
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.
