The fact of the case as mentioned in the petition of complaint is that the complainant is a resident of Vill. Chainpara, under the P.S. Baishnabnagar Dist. Malda. In the petition of complaint it has been mentioned that the complainant is a ‘Consumer’ u/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 under the W.B.S.E.D.C.L. Baishnabnagar Group Electric Supply. The O.Ps are electric supplier in the name and style West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. It has been mentioned in the petition of complaint as well as in Examination –in-Chief that one wheat / paddy grinding mill was purchased by the father of the complainant Atul Ghosh. Thereafter, the complainant got charge of the said grinding mill from his father as a gift for running of the said mill. It has been further stated that the complainant Mithun Ghosh started the said shop in the name and style M/s. Mithun Husking Mill. For running of the said mill the complainant Mithun Ghosh applied for a new commercial miter and new connection and submitted an application vide Application No. 3001419265 before the O.P No.5 , Station Manager Baishnabnagar Customer Care Centre of W.B.S.E.D.C.L. After filing the application the Station Manager perused the documents and received the documents as per direction of the O.P. No.5. The complainant deposited         Rs. 2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand Only) on 27/02/2015. After proper verification and inspection the Station Manager sent a quotation in favour of the complainant on 08/07/2015 and directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 22,741/- (Rupees Twenty Two Thousand Seven Hundred Forty One Only) and as per the said quotation the complainant deposited the said amount of Rs. 22,741(Rupees Twenty Two Thousand Seven Hundred Forty One Only) on 27/07/2015. In spite of receiving quotation amount the O.P. No.5 did not arrange to connect any electric connection or did not arrange for installation of any new meter into the said mill of the complainant. The complainant several times requested the O.P. to give electric connection by installing a new meter. Ultimately no fruitful result was found for which the complainant has come to this Forum to get his relief as prayed for.

The petition has been contested by the O.Ps through O.P. No.5 Assistant Engineer – Station Manager, Baishnabnagar Group Customer Care Centre by filing the written version denying all the material allegation as leveled against the O.P. contending inter alia that the instant case is not maintainable in its present form. The case has been filed by suppressing the real fact. The case is barred by principle of waiver, estoppels, acquiescence and the case is also barred by law of limitation.

The definite defense case is that the father of the complainant used to reside jointly with his father and his father was caught red-handed for theft of electricity by way of hooking for which the Station Manager Baishnabnagar Customer Care Centre filed a complaint before the Baishnabnagar P.S. u/s. 35 of the Electricity Act and Baishnabnagar P.S. started P.S. Case No. 544/2015 dt. 14/08/2015 corresponding to Special Case No. 234/15 and on the date of filing of this case the case was not disposed. This is why no new connection was given to the complainant. Considering such facts and circumstances  the instant case is liable to be dismissed.

In order to prove the case the complainant filed Examination-in-Chief. The O.P. filed questionnaires in view of the Examination –in-Chief and the complainant also gave reply to the questionnaires No other witness was examined as such vide Order No. 23 dt. 23/12/2019 the evidence on complainant side was closed. As no witness was present on behalf of the complainant, moreover there was no prayer for further examination of any witness on behalf of the complainant and this Forum fixed 22/01/2020 for O.P.W and argument. The O.P. did not adduce any evidence. The Ld.Lawyer of the O.P. submitted that the O.P. will not adduce evidence. Hence, evidence of other side was closed. The complainant and the O.P. filed a written argument. Latter on the Ld.Lawyer of the complainant not argued and filed a petition for giving opportunity to adduce further evidence and this Forum rejected this prayer for further evidence on behalf of the complainant as the evidence of the complainant side was closed vide Order No. 23 dt. 12/12/2019.

Now the point for determination:- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?

::DECISION WITH REASONS::

At the time of argument the Ld.Lawyer of the O.P. submitted that the father of the complainant Mr. Atul Ghosh was the owner of the mill and he used to run the said mill by hooking electricity for which a criminal case was started on the basis of a petition of complaint filed by the Station Manager for which the Baishnabnagar P.S. started Baishnabnagar P.S. Case No. 544/2015 dt. 14/08/2015  u/s. 135 (1) of the Electricity Act, 2003. The ld. Lawyer of the O.P. further submitted that unless and until the complainant deposits the money or compound the offenses or the criminal case is disposed of the Electricity Department cannot give any electric connection in the same premises unless and until it is proved that the mill has been acquired by the complainant from his father. At the time of filing the case the complainant filed the necessary documents but no documents have been filed by the complainant to show that the property has been acquired by the complainant. The complainant also filed the examination-in-chief in the month of December, 2017 but nowhere of the examination-in-chief it is found that how he became the owner of the mill in question.

The O.P. gave questionnaires. In para 11 of the questionnaires of the O.P. it is found that on 17/11/2016 through Memo No. BSN 2016 /17/941 dt. 07/01/2016 the Electricity Department has informed that it is not possible to give the electric connection. So the complainant had a knowledge that it is not possible to give the connection.  But in the petition of complaint the complainant did not mention such fact. So the complainant has not come to this Forum with a clean hand.  The Ld.Lawyer though not argued but submitted before this Forum that the examination-in-chief not tendered. The complainant gave reply to the questionnaires in view of the examination-in-chief filed by the complainant. Moreover, in a consumer case it is not mandatory that the evidence of the complainant is required to be tendered and it can be disposed of on the basis of an affidavit.

In view of the case law of the Hon’ble National Commission reported in 2002 (3)CLT  516 wherein the Hon’ble National Commission hold that examination of witness of a party before the Forum under the C.P.Act, 1986 is not a rule it is only an explanation when the reputation of a person, like the medical practitioner in the case of alleged medical negligence is involved he will have a right to cross-examination any person alleging professional negligence against him where it is mere a question as to veracity of the statement of the witness, cross-examination cannot be permitted in that case to contradict. Party can certainly file his own affidavit or any other witness if the cross-examination of a person is to be permitted in every case under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the whole object of this Act will be lost and there would be hardly be any difference in proceeding before the Forum under the Act and a Civil Court. Many disputes involved highstakes and a huge values are decided in a writ jurisdiction by the High Court and Supreme Court merely on the basis of affidavits.

As and when the complainant came to know that it is not possible to give the connection so definitely the complainant does not come to a definition of ‘Consumer’ under the Provision of Consumer Protection Act, 1986  as the relationship to the complainant and the O.Ps have been decided by the letter. So on considering the facts and circumstances it is found that the instant case is not maintainable in this Forum.

C.F. paid is correct.

Hence, ordered that

the case be and the same is dismissed on contest without any cost.

Let a copy of this judgment be given to the Complainant/O.P. free of cost on proper application.