By filing this complaint u/s 12 of the C. P. Act 1986, the complainant Sk. Laltu prays for an order directing the OP to provide electricity as soon as possible and further to pay compensation for mental agony and tension and litigation cost..

                The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he applied for electricity in the inherited property of his deceased father then the OP send representation to the petitioner on 22.02.2012 and the petitioner also deposited earnest money of Rs.200 to the Op on 01.03.2012 and the OP send quotation on 09.07.2012. As per quotation the complainant deposited Rs.260/- as security deposit and Rs.200/- hose SC charge on 19.09.2014. After waiting long time the petitioner wrote letter a letter on 28.10.2014 requesting to provide electricity as soon as possible but OP willfully avoid petitioner’s request.  As the right of the petitioner as a consumer has been prejudiced so he filed the instant complaint before this Forum praying redressal as prayed in the prayer portion of the complaint petition.

The sole OP appeared by filing written version denying the allegations as leveled against him and averred that the schedule of the property as mentioned in the alleged complaint petition is joint and ejmail property and petitioner is one of the co-owner of the same so way leave is required for effecting new connection to the premises of the petitioner. There is a dispute in between the petitioner and one Sk Najrul Islam and a civil suit is pending and the petitioner is enjoying power through the meter lying in the name of his mother Jahanara Khatun so the OP by a letter requested the petitioner Sk. Laltu to submit a letter asking refund of money lying before the OP. Due to existence of disputes, objection and differences among the Co-owners and neighbor there is hardly any scope to draw any further electric line in the locality in question. The OP further assailed that as per settled rules and regulations of the WBSEDCL the consumption of energy cannot be split up by installing two or more meters in the same premises. More over several attempts have been made from the end of the OP to effectuate the power connection in the premises of the complainant but they could not due to strong objection by Sk. Najrul Islam and lastly requested the petitioner to seek refund of quotation money. The land in question through which the electric line is to be drawn belongs to Sk. Najrul Islam and the petitioner also raised an objection in the matter of giving effect of another new service connection in the premises of the Sk. Najrul Islam and the OP tried to solve the matter amicably but failed. So the Op has no deficiency of service  and the  complaint petition is liable to be rejected.

 Both sides filed affidavit in chief and written notes of arguments which are taken into consideration during the passing final order.

The argument as advanced by the advocates of the parties heard in full. The advocate on behalf of the complainant assailed that the OP failed to provide power despite receiving quotation money so he is deficient in providing service for which the complainant is entitled to get compensation. The advocate on behalf of the OP by producing a few documents tried to establish that the OP was not deficient in providing service towards the complainant and objected to the compensation as prayed by the complainant.  

From the discussion herein above, we find the following Issues/Points for consideration.

ISSUES/POINTS   FOR   CONSIDERATION

 1). Whether the Complainant Sk. Laltu..is a ‘Consumer’ of the Opposite Party?

 2).Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?

3).Whether the OPs carried on unfair trade practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards the Complainant?

4).Whether the complainant proved his case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to him?

DECISION WITH REASONS

 In the light of discussions here in above we find that the issues/points should be decided based on the above perspectives.

(1).Whether the Complainant Sk. Laltu is a ‘Consumer’ of the opposite party?

     From the materials on record it is transparent that the Complainant is a “Consumer” as provided by the spirit of section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. As the complainant herein deposited quotation money for getting electricity in his premises it is admitted by the OP Company being the service provider.

     (2).Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?

                Both the complainant and opposite party are residents/carrying on business within the district of Hooghly. The complaint valued within Rs.20,00,000/- limit of this Forum. So, this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case.             

    (3).Whether the opposite party carried on Unfair Trade Practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards the Complainant?

             The opposite party being the largest Electric Supply Company throughout the state having a  lot of offices, power stations, substations and power generating stations decorated with a lot of expert hands and running its business with goodwill for a long period and providing/rendering service for development of society as well as implementing a lot of Govt. programs. So the role of OP Company for the development of the society is unquestionable.

The O.P. herein is the Station Manager of an office of the largest electric supply company throughout the State of W.B. The Company WBSEDCL running its business throughout the state except territorial jurisdiction of Kolkata Corporation. The O.P. Company is providing power in the rural areas in different projects for a long period. That is why the consumers in the rural areas are highly grateful to the Company. While providing powers throughout the state it also suffers from many discrepancies. Like not sending/ preparing bills in due time or sending bills for a period when the powers are discontinued and not taking reading regularly as a result the consumers suffers from paying accumulated units at a higher rate and fails to provide powers to the consumers after taking quotation money. As a result the consumers suffer a lot and make their grievances for remedy before the appropriate Forums. The inaction/negligence/ discrepancies of the OP Company tantamount to deficiency of service for which the consumers are suffering a lot.

       After perusing the case record it appears that the complainant being the proposed consumer of getting electricity from the OP deposited the quotation money and waited for a considerable period of getting electricity and visited the OP office several times for the same but the OP could not effectuate the same due to objection raised by the co-sharers of the land on which the supply line will pass to provide the power to this complainant. The objector by producing a copy of partition suit assailed before the OP that a partition suit is pending before the civil court in connection with the partition of the land through which the complainant intended to get power, so the complainant has no way leave of getting power connection. The personnel of the OP could not effectuate power connection due to strong objection by local public namely Sk. Najrul Islam & others so they returned back the single phase energy meter with seal to the OP for information and taking necessary action. The case record transpires that the complainant also put objection in the power connection of the person who put objection in the power connection of the complainant. Both are co-sharers of the impugned land through which the service line will pass for effecting the power connection of the complainant. So we are of the opinion that let the civil suit be disposed thereafter the complainant may file application before the OP to get separate power connection in his premises showing the way leave. He is at liberty to get the quotation money refund from the OP.

4). Whether the complainant proved his case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to him?

            The discussion made herein before, we have no hesitation to come in a conclusion that the complainant could not able to prove his case. So the Opposite Party is not liable to pay any compensation to this complainant.

ORDER

       Hence, ordered that the complaint case being No.260/2014 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the opposite party, with no order as to cost.      

  The Opposite Party is exonerated from his liability.

 Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their Ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/ sent by ordinary post for information & necessary action.

        Dictated and corrected by me.