IN THE COURT OF THE LD. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT S I L I G U R I.

CONSUMER CASE NO. : 50/S/2015.                   DATED : 26.02.2018.   

BEFORE  PRESIDENT              : SMT. KRISHNA PODDAR,

                                                              President, D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri.

                      MEMBERS              : SMT. PRATITI BHATTACHARYYA &

  SRI TAPAN KUMAR BARMAN.

COMPLAINANT                       :  SRI MAKHAN CHANDRA MAJUMDER,

   S/o. Late Mahendra Chandra Majumdar,

   Ram Krishna Nagar, Siliguri,

   S.M.C. Ward No.47, P.O. & P.S.- Pradhan Nagar,  

   Dist.- Darjeeling, Phone- 98322 41172.     

O.Ps.              1.                       : STATION MANAGER,  

   Pradhan Nagar Gr. Electric Supply, Siliguri,

   P.O. & P.S.- Pradhan Nagar, Dist.- Darjeeling,

                        2.                     :  SMT. PUTUL MAJUMDER,

                                                               W/o. Makhan Ch. Majumder,  

   Ram Krishna Nagar, Siliguri,

   S.M.C. Ward No.47,

   P.O. & P.S.- Pradhan Nagar, Dist.- Darjeeling.   

FOR THE COMPLAINANT         : Sri Kanchan Bhadra, Advocate.

J U D G E M E N T

Smt. Krishna Poddar, Ld. President.

The brief facts of the complaint case are that the complainant is the owner and occupier of the Holding being Holding No.983 and the electric meter was also in the name of the complainant.  The OP No.2 Smt. Putul Rani Majumdar is the wife of the complainant.  The OP No.2 for her illegal gain by suppressing truth and by giving false information has changed the above mentioned holding and electric meter in her name and she filed a false case against the complainant under Section 498 A I.P.C.  After enquiry the name of the complainant in the Holding no.983 was again restored by the Municipal Authority but the Station Manager, Pradhan Nagar Group Electricity Supply in connivance with the wife of the complainant i.e., OP No.2 herein did not transfer the existing service

Contd.....P/3

-:3:-

connection in the name of the complainant for their illegal gain.  Complainant filed petition for transfer of the electric connection in his name before the OP No.1 i.e., Station Manager, Pradhan Nagar Group Electric Supply and submitted all necessary papers and documents but unfortunately OP No.1 on 08.01.2015 sent a letter vide Memo No.PNGS/E4/2126 dated 08.01.2015 to the complainant informing that “in order to reverse the name of Consumer ID-142018092 from Smt. Putul Majumdar to Sri Makhan Chandra Majumdar you are requested to submit No Objection Certificate from Smt. Putul Majumdar”.  It has been asserted by the complainant that the Station Manager, Group Electric Supply, Pradhan Nagar in collusion with OP No.2 sent the above mentioned letter to the complainant and denied to reverse the name of the Consumer ID-142018092 from the name of OP No.2 Putul Rani Majumdar to the name of the complainant.  Hence, this case.       

OP Nos.1 & 2 entered appearance and contested the case by filing two separate written versions wherein the material averments made in the complaint have been denied and it has been contended inter-alia that the instant case is not maintainable. 

It has been contended by the OP No.1 that the complainant has no status of consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, as no service connection was provided to him and no deposit is/was received from the complainant for new connection or for transfer of the existing service connection which stands in the name of the OP No.2 who is the wife of the complainant.  It has been further stated by the OP No.1 that as per office note the premises was physically verified by Station Manager, Pradhan Nagar CCC, WBSEDCL on 31.10.2014 and on physical inspection it was found that both the complainant and his wife Smt. Putul Majumdar are residing in the same premises in the same holding and there are other four tenants also reside in the Holding No.983 and S.M.C. Ward No.47.  It has been further admitted by the OP No.1 that initially Consumer ID No.412018092 was in the name of the complainant and in the year 2007 upon receipt of the application and holding tax receipt in the name of the OP No.2 the service connection was changed in the name of OP No.2 in S.M.C. Holding No.983, S.M.C. Ward No.47 after receipt of the quotation amounts for change of the name in respect of the service connection.  It has been further stated by the OP No.1 that after receiving the letter from

Contd.....P/3

-:3:-

the complainant for transfer the service connection in his name the OP No.1 (WBSEDCL) issued notice to OP No.2 to submit the current Holding Tax receipt and in reply the OP No.2 raised objection and as per guideline the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission Notification No.46/WBERC, Kolkata 31^st May, 2010 the complainant was asked to submit No Objection Certificate from the existing consumer as per procedure and OP No.1 acted as per order and regulation claimed by the WBERC.  It has been further contended by the OP No.1 that there is no deficiency or negligence in service from the side of the OP No.1 for not transferring the existing service connection to the name of the complainant and accordingly the instant case is liable to be dismissed with cost.

The OP No.2 has filed a separate written version stating that the OP No.1 has maintained their procedural norms and legally recorded the name of OP No.2 as the consumer in respect of the Holding No.983 and there is no method by which the OP No.1 can restore the name of any unknown person.  It has been further stated by the OP No.2 that in the year 2007 the relation of the complainant and the OP No.2 was good and the complainant wilfully and in good faith transferred the holding in favour of OP No.2 and mutated the name of OP No.2 with the record of Siliguri Municipal Corporation as well as the WBSEDCL and OP No.2 has been paying the electric charges as per reading of the meter.  It has been further stated by the OP No.2 that the complainant has already mutated his in respect of the holding without informing the OP No.2 and under such circumstances the OP No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the case.             

To prove the case, the complainant has filed the following documents:-

1.       Holding Tax receipt (original) and copy of order.

2.       Original receipt of Electric supply. 

3.       Original receipt of Meter of Electric Dept.

4.       Notice of S.M.C.

5.       Copy of order of Holding of S.M.C.

6.       Copy of F.I.R.

7.       Copy of complaint of Electric Dept.

8.       Copy of Letter of Electric Dept.

9.       Copy of complaint to S.M.C.

Contd.....P/4

-:4:-

OP No.1 has filed the following documents :-

1.       Gazette notification of WBSEDCL dated April 2, 2013.

2.       One Xerox Holding Tax Receipt in the name of Putul Majumdar (side sign of Makhan Majumdar).

3.       One Xerox letter of the WBSEDCL dated 08.01.2015 addressed to Makhan Chandra Majumdar.

4.       One Xerox letter of the WBSEDCL dated 02.09.2013 addressed to Smt. Putul Majumdar.

Complainant has filed examination-in-chief supported by affidavit.

Complainant has filed written notes of argument.

OP Nos.1 & 2 have filed examination-in-chief by way of affidavit.

OP No.2 has filed written notes of argument. 

Points for determination

1.       Whether the complainant is a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ?

2.       Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs ?

2.       Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?

Decision with reason

          All the three issues are taken up together for the brevity and convenience of discussion.

This is the specific case of the complainant that complainant is the owner and occupier of the holding no.983 and initially the electric meter was also in the name of the complainant.  But the wife of the complainant for her illegal gain by suppressing the truth and giving false information changed the holding no.983 and electric meter in her name.  The further case of the complainant is that after enquiry the Siliguri Municipal Corporation again restored the holding no.983 in the name of the complainant but the Station Manager, Pradhan Nagar Group Electric Supply i.e., OP No.1 herein in connivance with the OP No.2 did not restore/change the electric meter in the name of the complainant. 

In order to substantiate the case, the complainant has submitted his examination-in-chief together with supported documents.  The OP Nos.1 & 2 also admitted in their written versions as well as evidence that

Contd.....P/5

-:5:-

initially the Consumer ID No.412018092 was in the name of the complainant and in the year 2007 on receipt of the application and holding tax receipt in the name of the OP No.2 the service connection was changed in the name of OP No.2 in respect of SMC Holding No.983 and SMC Ward No.47 after receipt of the quotation amount for change of the name in respect of the service connection. 

In this case on the side of the complainant the Memo No.25/3/assessment dated 31.07.2008 has been submitted where from it appears that Chief Executive Officer, Siliguri Municipal Corporation by his letter dated 31.07.2008 has informed to the Borough Officer, Borough Committee No.1, Siliguri Municipal Corporation that “one mutation/change of name was allowed in favour of Smt. Putul Majumdar of Ramkrishna Colony, vide mutation case no.34/07-8 dated 13.04.2007 in respect of holding no.983, Ward No.47 in place of Sri Makhan Chandra Majumdar.  After due enquiry the said mutation/change of name is found necessary to be treated as cancelled and the name of Sri Makhan Chandra Majumdar to be restored in the above mentioned holding in place of Smt. Putul Majumdar.”  The complainant also submitted some tax collection receipt of Siliguri Municipal Corporation where from we find that the complainant Sri Makhan Chandra Majumdar is paying the P. Tax in respect of Holding No.983 and Ward No.47 to the Siliguri Municipal Corporation and the Siliguri Municipal Corporation issued receipts in the name of the complainant. 

OP No.1 in his written version has admitted that initially the electric consumption meter was in the name of the complainant and in the year 2007 on receipt of the application and holding tax receipt from OP No.2 the service connection was changed in the name of OP No.2 in S.M.C. Holding No.983 and S.M.C. Ward No.47.  The complainant made an application to the OP No.1 for transfer of the existing service connection in his name which was duly received by OP No.1 and OP No.1 vide their Memo No.PNGS/E-4/2126 dated 08.01.2015 informed to the complainant that in order to reverse the name of Consumer ID No.412018092 from Smt. Putul Majumdar to Sri Makhan Majumdar he is requested to submit No Objection Certificate from Smt. Putul Majumdar.  The complainant has already ventilated in the said letter that his wife Putul Majumdar in his absence somehow managed to restore the electric line in her name and

Contd.....P/6

-:6:-

she has initiated different proceedings including a proceeding under Section 498 A I.P.C. against the complainant.  So, it is obvious that the OP No.2 will never give No Objection Certificate to the complainant for restoration of the electric connection in his name.  When the complainant has brought to the knowledge of the OP No.1 by producing relevant documents that the holding No.983 is duly mutated in his name by the SMC and he is paying the property tax and other taxes to the Municipality, then what resisted the OP No.1 to restore the name of the complainant or reverse the name of the Consumer ID No.412018092 from the name Smt. Putul Majumdar to the name of the complainant Sri Makhan Chandra Majumdar.  In this connection we like to mention that on receipt of the letter of the complainant the OP No.1 has sent a Memo being No.PNGS/E-4/801 dated 02.09.2013 to the OP No.2 stating that a domestic connection is recorded in respect of the name of OP No.2 vide Consumer ID 412018092 which was previously recorded in the name of Makhan Chandra Majumdar said Makhan Chandra Majumadar has submitted a letter to the office of OP No.1 claiming that the premises to which the connection is provided belongs to him and submitted latest documents in that regard and he demanded the change of name to be altered and restoration of his name in respect of the said Consumer ID.  Under the circumstances OP No.2 was requested to submit the documents showing her ownership over the premises within seven working days after receiving the letter.  From this letter it is clear that the complainant has submitted all relevant papers and documents in support of his claim to the OP No.1 but OP No.1 instead of changing the name of Makhan Chandra Majumdar in respect of Consumer ID 412018092, vide his letter dated 08.01.2015 asked the complainant to submit No Objection Certificate from OP No.2.  When the OP No.1 finds that all the relevant documents in respect of holding in question is in the name of the complainant and when he finds that there is no good terms between the complainant and the OP No.2 i.e., his wife Putul Majumdar, then how the OP No.1 demands a No Objection Certificate of OP No.2 from the complainant.  Here we find that initially the electric Consumer ID was in the name of the complainant but somehow the OP No.2 managed to record her name or changed her name in place of the complainant.  So, there is no hesitation to hold that the complainant is a consumer under the OP

Contd.....P/7

-:7:-

No.1 and he is entitled to get service from the OP No.1 for reversal of change of name in respect of the Consumer ID No.412018092.  But it is the OP No.1 who deliberately and arbitrarily avoided to change the name of the complainant and to restore the electric line in his name on the plea that the complainant has to bring No Objection Certificate from the OP No.2. 

When it appears that the complainant has all relevant documents and papers in respect of the Holding No.983 and Ward No.47 in his name, the OP No.1 is bound to change the name of the complainant in place of the OP No.2 and restore the electric line in his name.  Accordingly, complainant is entitled to get relief against the OP No.1 for reversal/change of the Consumer ID 412018092 from the name of Smt. Putul Majumdar to his name.  The complainant is further entitled to get a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to him by OP No.1.  The complainant is further entitled to get Rs.5,000/- towards litigation cost.                   

In the result, the case succeeds in part.        

Hence, it is

                     O R D E R E D

that the Consumer Case No.50/S/2015 is allowed on contest in part against the OP No.1 with cost and the case is dismissed against the OP No.2 without cost as no relief sought for against her.

The complainant is entitled to get reversal/change of the Consumer ID 412018092 from the name of Smt. Putul Majumdar to his name on his deposit of the quotation amount for change of the name in respect of the service connection to the OP No.1.

The complainant is further entitled to get compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental pain agony and harassment from the OP No.1.

The complainant is further entitled to get a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation cost from the OP No.1. 

The OP No.1 is directed to reverse the name of Consumer ID 412018092 from the name of Smt. Putul Majumdar to the name of Sri Makhan Chandra Majumdar within 45 days from the date of this order after taking the quotation amount for change of the name in respect of the service connection from the complainant. 

Contd.....P/8

-:8:-

The OP No.1 is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- by issuing an account payee cheque in the name of the complainant towards compensation for mental pain, agony and harassment within 45 days from the date of this order.

The OP No.1 is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- by issuing an account payee cheque in the name of the complainant towards litigation cost within 45 days from the date of this order.

Failing which the amount of Rs.10,000/- will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order till full realization. 

In case of default, the complainant is at liberty to execute this order through this Forum as per law.    

Let copies of this judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost.