View 718 Cases Against Wbsedcl
Sri Asok Mondal filed a consumer case on 08 Apr 2016 against Station Manager WBSEDCL in the Birbhum Consumer Court. The case no is CC/14/73 and the judgment uploaded on 08 Apr 2016.
The complainant Sri Asok Mondal filed a petition U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In a nutshell, the case is that the complainant applied for domestic electric connection before the Station Manager, WBSEDCL, Murarai Gr. E/Supply, Murarai, Birbhum (the O.P.) and deposited quotation amount of Rs. 900 on 26.02.1997. After few years the complainant filed an application before the O.P denying to take electric connection due to some unavoidable circumstances and prayed for refunding quotation money but the O.P did not pay any heed. After that the complainant approached personally and filed application for refunding of his quotation money before the O.P several times. But the O.P remains idle and inactive. Finding no other alternative the complainant filed this case. The complainant prayed for relief/reliefs as per the complaint.
The O.P contested the case by filing written version and denied all the allegations made against him in the petition of complaint. The O.P stated that the instant complaint is barred U/s 24(A) of the C.P. Act. The O.P also prayed for dismissal of the case with cost.
The complainant filed evidence in chief on affidavit and some documents and cross examined himself in the form of questionnaire. The O.P has not adduced any evidence. Ld. Lawyer for the O.P filed written argument. Oral arguments of both sides have been heard.
On careful perusal of documents and other materials on record following points are necessary to discuss to determine the case.
POINTS
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point No.1: Evidently the complainant applied for domestic connection on 20.08.1996 vide application No. MUR/D/274 and a quotation was issued in the name of the complainant vide quotation No. MUR/Quotation/ 1554 dated 28.01.1997. Accordingly the complainant has deposited the quotation amount of total Rs. 900 for service connection No. 8670/DOM vide receipts No. OR/Z/96/076555; No. OR/Z/96/076554 and No. OR/Z/96/076553 all were dated 26.02.1997 as cost of meter, security deposit and service connection charges respectively. So, the complainant is a consumer of the O.P U/s 2(1)(d)(ii) of C.P Act, 1986.
Point No. 2: It is admitted that complainant applied for domestic connection on 20.08.1996 and deposited quotation amount on 26.02.1997 for service connection No. 8670/DOM and waited for long time but the O.P did not affect the service connection. At the time of argument the complainant stated that he has visited the O.Ps office several times for the service connection of his residence but the O.P did not pay any heed rather he has been humiliated by the O.P every time. Being harassed and aggrieved the complainant filed an application before the O.P on 18.04.2004 denying to affect the electric connection in his premises and requested to refund the quotation amount. But still then the O.P remains idle and inactive. The documents show that the complainant visited the O.Ps office time to time and filed application for refunding his money firstly on 18.04.2004, thereafter on 10.05.2011 and lastly on 17.04.2014 but the O.P did not refund the complainant’s money till now and there is no satisfactory answer on the part of the O.P regarding the matter. So, the Forum thinks that it is a case of continuous cause of action and for that reason the case is not barred U/s 24(A) of C.P. Act.
Point No. 3 and 4: Both points are interrelated to each other and taken up together for discussion for the sake of convenience and brevity.
There is no dispute regarding the fact that the complainant applied for his domestic connection in proper way and deposited the quotation amount on 26.02.1997. During hearing of argument the complainant stated that after several request and visit of the O.P’s office the O.P did not affect the service connection in his house and he has waited till 18.04.2004 for that connection and he has been harassed and humiliated by the O.P. The complainant also stated that after waiting for a long time the complainant became fade up and filed an application on 18.04.2004 before the O.P denying to affect the electric connection in his house and requested to refund the quotation amount which he had deposited but the O.P has also not refunded the same till now. In this regard there is no satisfactory answer on the part of the O.P regarding the non affecting of service connection in the complainant’s house in between 26.02.1997 and 18.04.2004 and non refunding of quotation money. The O.P neither affects the service connection in the complainant’s house till 18.04.2004 nor refunds the quotation money to the complainant till now. So, it is clear from above discussion that there is negligencey and deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.
The complainant has deposited Rs. 900 as quotation amount so he is entitled to get back that amount from the O.P. The complainant should not be deprived from his legitimate claim. Points 3 and 4 thus decided in favour of the complainant and the complainant is able to prove his case.
Proper fees have been paid.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
that C.F Case No. 73/2014 be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.P.
The O.P is directed to refund Rs. 900 to the complainant along with interest @ 10% P.A from the date of receipt of the money i.e. from 26.02.1997 till the date of realization of the amount. The O.P is also directed to pay Rs. 1000 as litigation cost to the complainant. All the above order will be complied within one month from the date of this order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to execute this order as per law and procedure.
A copy of this order be supplied to the parties each free of cost immediately.
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.