West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/187/2012

Smt. Nirmala Bala Das - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chairman, W.B.S.E.D.C.L. - Opp.Party(s)

03 May 2013

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

 Complaint case No.187/2012                                                         Date of disposal: 03/05/2013                               

 BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT :  Mr. K. S. Samajder.

                                                      MEMBER :  xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

                                                      MEMBER :  Mr. Kapot Chattopadhyay.

    For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff : Mr. P. Ghosh. Advocate.

    For the Defendant/O.P.S.                           : Mr. S. K. Bhattacharya. Advocate.

          

Smt. Nirmala Bala Das, W/o-late Gourhari Das resident of Boxibazar, Mukunda Pukur Parh, P.O.-Midnapore, P.S.-Kotwali, Dist-Paschim Medinipur… ………Complainant.

                                                              Vs.

1. The Chairman, W.B.S.E.D.C.L., Vidyut Bhavan, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700091
2. The Station Manager, Midnapore Town CCC, Power House, Burdge Town, Gr.Electric Supply, W.B.S.E.D.C.L., P.O. & P.S.-Midnapore, Dist-Paschim Medinipur .…………Ops.

 

            The case of the complainant, in short, is that she applied before the Op. no.2 for getting electric connection at her house situated in the land as described in the schedule appended to the plaint and for this purpose she deposited earnest money of Rs.200/- on 02/05/2012. By a letter dated 13/05/2012 the Op. no.2 informed the complainant about the court case in respect of the property where the electric connection has been sought by the complainant and asked her to rectify the defects. The complainant further contended that the property in question where the electric connection has been sought is the subject matter of civil litigation where the Ld. Court has passed order of maintaining status quo by the parties including the complainant of the present case and as there is no order of injunction against the Op. no.2 of this case. There is no impediment in giving electric connection to the house of the complainant. Accordingly, the complainant prayed for direction upon the Ops. to give electric connection to the premises of the complainant as described in the schedule to the petition of complaint and other reliefs.

                  The Ops. contested the case by filing a written objection contending, interalia,  that the petitioner is not a consumer under the consumer protection Act, 1986. Further contention of the Ops. was that the land in which electric connection has been sought by the complainant, is the subject matter of a civil suit being title suit no.91/2005 in the 1^st Court of Ld. Civil Judge (Junior

Contd…………..P/2

 

- ( 2 ) -

Division) at Midnapore and an order of maintenance status quo till disposal of this suit has been passed by the Ld. Appellate Court. As such, the complainant was asked to take proper step for removing the legal difficulties and as the complainant failed to do so, the electric connection could not be given. The Ops. specifically contended that there  was no deficiency of service on their part. On these grounds, the Ops. prayed for dismissal of this case.

                Now, we are to see how far the complainant is entitled to get the relief as claimed. 

Decisions with reasons

                 It is an admitted fact that the complainant applied for electricity connection at the premises as per schedule to the petition of complaint and deposited earnest money of Rs.200/- with the Op. no.2.

                The Op. specifically contented that the complainant paid Rs.00/- towards application fee and that payment was not for any service Ld. Lawyer for the Ops. submitted that had the complainant paid the quotation money, that would have amounted to payment for service. Therefore the Ld. Lawyer for the complainant submitted that the complainant can not be said to be a consumer in view of the term, consumer as defined in sec-2(d)(ii) of the consumer protection Act-1986.

                 In reply, Ld. Lawyer for the complainant submitted that payment of earnest money clearly amounts to availing of service for consideration.

                 Now the terms, consumer has been defined in Sec. 2 (d)(ii) of the consumer protection Act which runs as follows: - 2(d) consumer means any person who-

1. buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose or   
2. hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary or such services other than the person who hires or avails of] the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose

         Contd…………..P/3

- ( 3 ) -

                 In this case what the complainant deposited was the earnest money. That was deposited along with the application. During hearing it revealed from the submission of the Ld. Lawyers for the parties that after an application is filed depositing the earnest money, the particulars spot where the electrical connection is sought is inspected and thereafter quotation is submitted to the applicant and after deposit of the quotation money further step towards extending electric connection is undertaken by WBSEDCL.

                In the instant case it is admitted that there was no quotation on the part of the Ops. and so the deposit of the quotation money did not arise. The payment of earnest money, in our considered view, does not amount to payment of consideration for service. Since quotation in given for extending service, it is the payment of quotation money amounts to payment of consideration of service. Therefore it is clear that there was no receipt of any consideration money of any service on the part of the Ops. and as such no relationship of consumer and service provider developed between the parties. Accordingly, the complainant can not be said to be a consumer in view of the consumer protection Act-1986 as referred to above.   

               If we, however, consider that the complainant is consumer under the Ops. then let us look into the other aspect of this case.

               The premise where the complainant has sought electric connection has been described in schedule of the petition of complainant. It is admitted that the complainant had filed a suit before the 1^st Court of Ld. Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Midnapore being T.S. No.91/2005 against Haripada Sen and others in respect of the selfsame property and the complainant’s prayer for temporary Injunction against the defendant of that suit was dismissed by the Ld. Civil Judge. It is the admitted case of the parties and from the materials on record it appears that the complainant  then filed an appeal and in appeal being Mic. Appeal No.122/2005, the Ld. Civil Judge(Senior Division), 3^rd Court Paschim Medinipur, directed the parties to maintain status quo with regard to  of their respective possession in the suit property. Copy of the said judgment has been filed in this case. We find there from that the Ld. Civil Judge (Senior Division) observed that both the parties have their respective possession in the suit property. There being order of  status quo in respect of the possession of the parties in the suit properly as granted by the Ld. Appellate Court, we find that there was nothing wrong on the part of the Ops. in not processing further with the application of the complainant for giving electric connection to the premises which premises is also the subject matter of the civil suit where the order of injunction is continuing.

                In this case the complainant has prayed for direction upon the Ops. to give electric connection to her premises. Our above finding would go to show clearly that the Ops. were nut unjustified in asking the complainant to takes proper step for giving electric connection to the

Contd…………..P/4

- ( 4 ) -

premises which is the subject matter of civil suit and in respect of which an order of temporary injuction  has been passed.

                   Therefore, we find that there was no deficiency of  any kind of service on the part of the Ops. and such the case is liable to be dismissed.    

                Hence, it is,

                                    Ordered,

                                                    that the case be dismissed on contest. No order as to cost.

Parties be supplied with the copy of Judgement free of cost.

Dic. & Corrected by me

              

         President                                             Member                                                President

                                                                                                                              District Forum

                                                                                                                          Paschim Medinipur.