F I N A L O R D E R
On 07.06.2017, the complainant has filed the complaint u/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the O.Ps.
The case of the complainant in brief is that the Raina Swami Bholananda Vidyayatan is an educational Centre established in 1894 at Raina which is governed by the Govt. of West Bengal. Mr. Korban Ali Khan is the Secretary cum Head Master of the School and Managing Committee. Several students from distant area come to this school for learning education. For betterment, benefit and helping of those students, the managing committee of the school established a hostel at a place 1.5km away from the school premises. After purchasing a plot of land appertaining to Mouza - Raina, J.L. No.118, Khatian No.620, L.R. Plot Nos.118, 119,117,124,125 etc. mutated and converted by the BL & LRO, Burdwan and the students used to reside thereon but all the cost of the students are borne by the complainant. Further case of the complainant is that, after constructing the hostel building, the complainant applied before the O.Ps for installing a new quotation bearing No.5001427816/Quot/03 on 17.11.2016 in favour of the complainant as a domestic connection [Applicable Terrief A (DM-R)] and by the said quotation O.Ps demanded Rs.3631/- from the complainant. The complainant on 28.11.2016 paid the said money to the O.Ps by issuing a money receipt bearing Nos.1016141 and 1016140. After receiving the quotation amount, the O.Ps made survey in the hostel premises but since receiving of the quotation amount they did not install the new connection in the premises. Due to non-installing the meter and electric connection, the O.Ps send a new quotation demanding Rs.35,002/- for enhancement of load of the connection of the school premises. As such the complainant consulted with Ld. Advocate Indranil Biswas and the Ld. Advocate send a notice dated 16.01.2017 to the O.Ps but the O.Ps did not reply to the said Advocate’s letter. The complainant applied before the Consumer Affairs Department, Burdwan and the said Department also issued a letter to the O.Ps on 13.02.2017. After receiving the letter from the Consumer Affairs Department, the O.Ps send a letter to the Ld. Advocate on 17.02.2017 wherein the O.Ps alleged the same false, arbitrary, contradictory and misguiding statements regarding unfair trade practice has adopted by the O.Ps. They also stated in the said letter that the complainant applied for enhancing the load but the complainant did never applied for load extension enhancement. The complainant is a bona fide consumer under the O.Ps in spite of that they neither bother to install the connection in the hostel premises nor bother to pay any heed to the requests of the complainant. Moreover, in spite of receiving quotation amount, the O.Ps only for undue gain and harassing your complainant whimsically raised another quotation by treating the connection as commercial one and demanded huge amount from your complainant for that the O.Ps have committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice upon the complainant for which the students of the school are suffering severely. The cause of action arose on and from 17.11.2016 and 28.11.2016 and it is continuing day by day.
Upon this background, the complainant prayed for passing necessary order by directing the O.Ps to install the new electric connection in the hostel premises of the complainant as per quotation dated 17.11.2016 and also to direct the O.Ps to pay a sum of Rs.70,000/- as compensation for the harassment of the complainant and for suffering from mental pain and agony along with a litigation cost of Rs.20,000/-.
The O.Ps have contested the case by filing written version denying all the material allegations contending, inter alia, that the complaint is vague, mala fide, speculative and motivated one and that the complaint does not come under the purview of the C.P. Act and that the complaint suffers from misjoinder and non-joinder of necessary parties and that there is no relation between the complainant and the O.P. as consumer and service provider and that the allegation made in Para Nos.1 to 3 of the complaint are all matters on record and the complainant is liable to prove the same strictly.
The specific case of the O.Ps is that one electric service connection stands in the name of the Raina Swami Bholananda Vidyayatan School at Raina, District-Burdwan which has been neither for the purpose of running a school with a load of 3.29 KVA though the school premises is a multi-storied building consisting of 50 or 60 rooms having required load of 26 to 28 KW and that running through a single phase meter beyond capacity and beyond contractual load. Subsequently, one application had been received by the O.P. No.1 on 17.11.2016 for effecting new connection at Raina Swami Bholananda Vidyayatan School and a quotation had been generated without any physical inspection and the applicant also deposited the quotational amount but the agency of the O.Ps failed to effect the proposed service connection as new service connection exist in the adjacent room of the self-same school premises.
The O.Ps further submitted that previously an application had been received from the Raina Swami Bholananda Vidyayatan School for extension of contractual load up to 6.526 KW and after getting approval from the higher authority, one quotation was also served upon the applicant school on 20.09.2016 but the school did not turn up to deposit the said quotational amount and again they filed an application to extend the quotation date up to 28.03.2017 and the same was received by the school on 28.12.2016. The O.Ps further submitted that one another inspection had been carried out on 19.01.2017 by the O.P. No.1 and found that one service connection was existing in the adjacent room and apparently there was no separate existence in between the school and the alleged hostel. Actually the school authority with an ulterior motive to split up the total load and to enjoy the slab benefit have applied for a separate service connection in the adjacent room of the self-same premises claiming to be the hostel of the school and as a matter of fact, there is no such hostel for which separate connection sought for and as per West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission guidelines application for splitting up the load is not tenable and as such there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. Upon this background, the O.Ps claimed for dismissal of the case.
-: Decision with Reasons:-
In order to prove the case, the complainant had adduced evidence-on-affidavit of the complaint. The O.Ps filed questionnaires against the said evidence. The complainant filed the replies. The O.Ps filed a petition for treating the W/V as their evidence-on-affidavit which has been allowed on 11.04.2019 and the said W/V has been treated as evidence-on-affidavit. The complainant has filed questionnaires against the said evidence and O.Ps also filed replies to the said questionnaires.
The complainant has filed the Xerox copies of quotation dated 17.11.2016 amounting to Rs.3631/- and the complainant paid the said quotational amount by filing money receipt No.1016141 and 1016140 issued by the O.Ps. He also filed the L.R. record of rights in respect of the plot of land and khatian numbers as stated in the petition of complaint in support of their claim that the electric connection in question and hostel are situated on the said plots of land. The complainant also filed the second quotation dated 28.12.2016 whose issued date was 28.03.2017 amounting to Rs.35002/- and thereafter on 16.01.2017 one Advocates letter was sent to the O.Ps by the complainant. The complainant also filed another letter issued by the O.Ps addressed to the Ld. Advocate Indranil Biswas of the complainant. The complainant also filed another Xerox copy of the order of School Education Department, Law Branch, Bikash Bhawan, Salt Lake City, Kol-91 dated 30.09.2013. Another two letters dated 24.04.2015 and 31.07.2015 issued by the School Education Department, Secondary Branch, Govt. of W.B. The O.Ps did not file annexure-I regarding the statement mentioned in Para-9 of the W/V.
Now, we would like to discuss the materials on record as to how the complainant has been able to prove his case and the O.Ps have been able to disprove their case.
Complainant did not file any written notes of argument but the O.Ps has filed written notes of argument. At the time of hearing of arguments, both the parties did not press that the complaint is vague, mala fide, speculative and motivated one or that the complaint suffers from misjoinder and non-joinder for necessary parties or that the complaint does not come under the purview of the C.P. Act or that there was no relation between the complainant and the O.Ps as consumer and service provider or that the complainant has no bona fide cause of action. Accordingly, all this factum are decided in favour of the complainant.
From the oral evidence, complaint and documentary evidence filed by the complainant, it appears that Raina Swami Bholananda Vidyayatan School is governed by the Govt. of W.B. and the complainant is the headmaster of the school and the secretary of the managing committee. As per L.R. record of rights, the school-in-question and the hostel-in-question are situated in the land of the school. From the evidence-on-record, the complainant for the betterment benefit and helping of the students from distant areas who used to come for learning education there constructed hostel of the school at a place which is 1.5 km away from the school premises and nothing has been produced by the O.Ps that the hostel premises is situated adjacent to the school premises. Therefore, it is clear that the hostel premises are situated 1.5km from the school premises. It is also admitted fact that the complainant has applied on 17.11.2016 for new electric connection to the hostel premises vide quotation No.5001427816/Quot/03 which was issued by the O.Ps and in response to the said quotation, the complainant has paid the demanded amount of Rs.3631/- to the O.Ps which has been supported by the money receipt as already stated above. Therefore, admitted fact need not be proved by the complainant at all. The complainant in his evidence as well as in the complaint stated that he never applied for enhance of the electric load to the meter of the electric connection of the school premises at all and the O.Ps have failed to produce any document to show that the complainant has applied for the same but as per the case of the complainant as well as case of the O.Ps, the agent of the O.P. No.1 made an enquiry into the hostel premises as because they issued the quotation and received the money of Rs.3631 from the complainant without inspection of the hostel premises. But how far it could be believable that without inspection of the hostel premises he issued the said quotation to the complainant when he actually received the amount of the said quotation and as per settled principle of law after accepting the money as per quotation they denied that they without inspection issued the quotation it can be presumed that after holding inspection they issue the same. There is no bar to inspect the premises for the second time but without giving the electric connection how the O.Ps made a second inspection after receiving the amount of the earlier quotations. The applied new electric connection of hostel premises of the Govt. running school cannot be treated as to profit earing institution and the complainant has been able to prove by his evidence that all the cost of the students who used to reside in the hostel are borne by the complainant which has not been contradicted and disproved by way of evidence of the O.Ps. Therefore they applied for new electric connection cannot be said that the said connection would be the commercial electric connection but it would be the domestic connection.
As regards the jurisdiction of this Commission to entertain the complaint against the O.Ps-WBSEDCL, Ld. Advocate for the O.Ps has argued that this Commission has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter unless the complainant to take recourse to the all procedure as mentioned in the Electricity Act, Rules and Regulations but Ld. Advocate for the complainant has argued that this Commission has parallel jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter without availing of all procedures that is the procedure to lodge complaint in the grievance cell or other authority of the electricity. According to the Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the provision of this act shall be in addition to and not derogation with the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Therefore this Consumer Commission has jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter as raised by the complainant against the O.Ps. It is settled principle of law that having due regard to the scheme of the Act and to protect the interest of the consumers, which the Act aims at the provisions of the Act are to be interpreted broadly, positively and purposefully so as to give additional and/or extended jurisdiction, but particularly when Section 3 seeks to provide remedy under Act in addition to other remedies provided under the other Acts unless there is clear bar. In the instant case, the Electricity Act, Rules & Regulations specifically provides that there is a clear bar regarding the jurisdiction of the Consumer Commission. Accordingly the arguments advanced by the Ld. Advocate for the O.Ps cannot be accepted and it is clear that this Commission has jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter in dispute.
Under the above facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the complainant has able to prove the case against the O.Ps and it can be said that the O.Ps has committed deficiency in service in the matter and the complainant is entitled to get relief.
The complainant prayed for compensation of Rs.70,000/- towards mental pain, agony and harassment suffered and litigation cost of Rs.20,000/-. In the evidence on affidavit, the complainant stated that the conducts of the O.Ps are deficiency in service and unfair trade practice due to which the students of the complainant’ school are suffering severely but the complainant did not categorically stated how much he himself suffered or the students suffered. Even there is no such evidence on behalf of the complainant as to whether the students were staying in the hostel-in-question without electrification. It is well settled that it is necessary that the Commission when it is satisfied that a complainant is entitled to the compensation for harassment or mental agony or oppression, which finding occurrence should be recorded carefully on material and convincing circumstances and not likely. In the instant case, there is no such material for harassment or mental agony or oppression either in the evidence of the complainant or any material produced by him in this regard. On the other hand, the complainant is the headmaster of the Govt. running school as well as the secretary of the managing committee of the said school and O.Ps are the another Govt. organs. Therefore, we are of opinion that there is no such material to award compensation of Rs.70,000/- to the complainant towards mental pain, agony and harassment suffered but the case has been originated in the year 2017 and the litigation cost has been borne out by the complainant. As such the complainant is entitled to get litigation cost in this case. It would be proper and justified if the litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- is awarded as a result the case succeeds. Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
that this case be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.Ps but without any cost. The O.Ps are directed to install the new electric connection in the hostel premises of the complainant as per quotation dated 17.11.2016 within 45days of the receipt of this final order. O.Ps are also directed to pay a litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-(Ten Thousand) only to the complainant within 45 days and the department concerned is to recover the same from those who are found responsible for such behavior by dividing it proportionately by whom the deficiency in service were caused.
Let a copy of this order be supplied to the parties on free of cost.
Dictated & Corrected by me:
President
DCDRC, Purba Bardhaman
President
DCDRC, Purba Bardhaman
Member
DCDRC,Purba Bardhaman
