IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No.CC/98/2013
Date of Filing: 07.08.2013. Date of Final Order: 28.07.2015.
Complainant: Joydeep Misra, S/O Parimal Misra. 24/4, Mohon Roy Para, P.O. Khagra, P.S. Berhampore, Dist. Murshidabad.
-Vs-
Opposite Party: Station Manager, Gorabazar, WBSEDCL, Abdus Samad Road,
P.O.& P.S. Berhampore, Dist. Murshidabad.
Present: Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya ………………….President.
Sri Samaresh Kumar Mitra ……………………..Member.
FINAL ORDER
Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya, Presiding Member.
The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying for proving electric connection to the schedule flat of taking required amount from the complainant for the purpose.
The complainant’s case, in brief, is that the complainant purchased and possessing flat No. D/G of Golden Valley Apartment from now deceased Anjan Gupta. On 25.5.13 the complainant purchased booklet paying Rs.5/- from OP office for getting electric connection in his flat. On 2.7.13 when the complainant tendered the application form duly filled in to the OP office obtaining electric connection, the OP refused to take the duly filled in application and denied to provide electric connection in his flat. In spite of repeated requests going to the office, the OP did not pay any heed to it. Thereafter, the complainant sent notice to the OP by regd. post with A/D to prove electric connection to his flat, on 07.07.13 the complainant got the duly acknowledged receipt. On 19.7.13 the OP replied with notice that as transformer was not installed in the flat, no electrical connection cannot be provided thereto. The OP is not providing electric connection to the flat of the complainant deliberately and illegally. This is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Then the complainant filed this complaint for getting eclectic connection and for compensation of Rs.50,000/-. Hence, the instant complaint.
The written version filed by the OP, in brief, is that the OP has denied the entire allegation of the complainant. As per procedure “B” introduced by WBSEDCL developer housing flats will apply for new connection at the all the constructed flats and also shall have to arrange for the space for housing for new distribution –sub-station. The developer of Golden Valley Apartment applied for new connection and quotation was issued but the quotational amount has not been deposited and consequently the quotation was cancelled. The developer again applied for new connection at the building. He was informed vide letter dt. 18.7.13 to arrange space. In reply the developer submitted a sketch map showing space and then quotation was issued but no quotation money was paid. There is no laches on the part of the OP. Procedure ‘B’ did not arise at the time of proceeding connection against Consumer No. I.D No. 312229823 in the premises. The complaint is liable to be rejected. Hence, the instant written version.
Considering the pleadings of both parties the following points have been framed for disposal of the case.
POINTS FOR DECISION
- Whether the complaint is maintainable in law and facts?
- Whether the complainant has locus standi to file the present case?
- Whether the complaint is barred by the principles of estoppels, waiver and acquiescence?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
- To what other relief/reliefs the complainant is entitled to?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point No.s 1 to 3
All these points are taken up together for the sake of convenience.
During hearing argument the ld. Lawyer for the OP has not raised any objection against these points.
Considering the materials on record we do not find anything adverse against the complainant in respect of these points and as such all these points are disposed of in favour of the complainant.
Point No. 4 and 5
Both these points are taken up together for the sake of convenience.
The complainant has filed this complaint for obtaining new electric connection in his newly purchased flat in a multi-storeyed building.
On the other hand, OP’s case is that as per latest provision w.e.f 15.01.2011 in a multi-storeyed building, the electric connection is to be taken through developer as transformer is to be installed.
Further case of the OP is that by mere purchase of application form the complainant can never be treated as ‘consumer’ as per definition under the C. P.Act. Unless the complainant deposits the estimated cost for installation of electric connection with the OP, there is no question of liability on the part of the OP to provide electric connection to the complainant.
The OP-WBSEDCL has filed relevant documents to show that the developers who is not a party in this case has already deposited a portion of cost for providing electric connection to that building and there was agreement that the remaining portion as to materials will be supplied by the developer but the same has not been complied with. For the amount already deposited the OP has already erected poll.
Regarding the complainant’s case as to the electric connection already provided to one flat owner directly without the present process as to through developer, the ld. lawyer for the OP has advanced argument referring the materials on record that the said connection was given as well as applied for depositing the cost before introduction of the present rule.
In this regard the ld. lawyer for the complainant has advanced argument that electricity is an essential service where the developer has already deposited with OP/WBSEDCL and developer has recently committed suicide and for that at present it has become uncertain for completion of the work.
Considering the present fact and circumstances and electricity being essential service the ld. lawyer for the complainant has advanced argument that the part performance of the developer by depositing money for electric connection in the building concerned is to be taken into consideration as an act of the complainant and the OP can ask the complainant to deposit the required amount for providing electric connection in his flat.
This argument of the ld. lawyer for the complainant is baseless. The same cannot be taken into consideration in any manner.
In this case the developer is not party.
Mere purchasing application form cannot create any right to become a consumer under the C.P. Act.
Another flat owner –Kajul Sinha got electric connection on 18.1.11 immediate after implementation of new rule as to applying through developer by “B’ form w.e.f 15.1.11 because that flat owner Mr. Sinha deposited necessary fees on 4.11.10 and 14.12.10 before implementation of the present rule.
In this case, the complainant went to the office of the OP with duly filled in form on 02.07.13 after implementation of the present rule on 15.01.11 and for that the OP office has rightly refused to accept the said filled in form.
Considering the above facts and circumstances we can safely conclude that the complainant is not entitled to get any relief.
On the basis of above discussion we find thatall these points are disposed of against the complainant.
Considering the decision of all the points together we find that the instant complaint be dismissed.
Hence,
ORDERED
that the Consumer Complaint No. 98/2013 be and the same is hereby dismissed on contest.
There will be no order as to cost.
Let a plain copy of this order be made available and be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties on contest in person, Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand under proper acknowledgment / be sent forthwith under ordinary post to the concerned parties as per rules, for information and necessary action.
Dictated and corrected by me.
Member, President,
District Consumer Disputes District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Murshidabad. Redressal Forum, Murshidabad.
