DATE OF FILING                    :     31-07-2013.

DATE OF S/R                            :      17-09-2013.

DATE OF FINAL ORDER      :     31-07-2014.  

Sri Tarun Gayen,

son of Rai Mohan  Gayen,

residing at Anandanagar, Sapuipara, Basukati,

P.S. Bally ( old ), Nischinda ( new ),

District – Howrah,

PIN – 711227.-----------------------------------------------------------  COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

1.         The Chairman,

WBSEDECL, Bidyut Bhawan,

 Salt Lake  City,

 Kolkata – 91.

2.         The Divisional Manager,

Howrah ( D ) Division, WBSEDCL,

13, Netaji  Subhas  Road,

Howrah – 1.

3.         The Station Manager,

WBSEDCL, Bally, Howrah,

Bally Group E/S.

4.         Smt. Sorojini  Gayen alias Sarojini  Gain,

wife of Rai Mohan Gayen,

residing at Anandanagar, Sapuipara, Basukati,

old P.S. Bally new P.S. Nischinda,

Howrah – 711 227.-------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.

                                                P    R    E     S    E    N     T

President     :     Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.

Member      :      Shri P.K. Chatterjee.

      Member       :     Smt. Jhumki Saha.     

                                                 F  I   N   A    L       O    R   D    E     R

1.               The complainant namely Tarun Gayen by filing a petition U/S 12 of the C .P. Act, 1986 ( as amended upto date ) has prayed for a direction to be given upon the O.P. nos. 1 to 3, WBSEDCL Authority, alleging deficiency in service U/S 2(1)(g) & 2(1)(o),  to provide new separate electric service connection at the complainant’s premises  together with compensation and litigation  costs as the o.ps. namely 1 to 3 i.e., WBSEDCL Authority has been deferring the supply of electricity for want of proper way leave of the complainant schedule premises, by the co-sharer including house owner namely o.p. no. 4.  Hence the complaint.    

2.      The o.p. no. 1 to 3 in their written version contended interalia that the complainant

has failed to provide necessary way leave before the o.p. nos. 1 to 3 i.e., WBSEDCL Authority and the complaint as made by the complainant is a private dispute between the complainant and the o.p. no. 4 belonging in the same undivided property occupying by the other co-sharers including o.p. no. 4 who happens to the mother of the complainant as per record. Moreover, they have no objection in effecting service connection in favour of the complainant provided the complainant should comply all the required formalities including no objection / way leave from the concerned authority.  

3.      Notice was served upon the o.p. no. 4 which was returned back with the postal

Remarks ‘not known’ / ‘not found’ and the complainant advised vide order no. 5 dated  26-11-2013 to take steps against o.p. no. 1 which went unheeded by the complainant resultant the o.p. no. 4 did not appear in spite of the facts that the complainant and o.p. no. 4 residing in the same premises.  

4.               Upon pleadings of both parties three  points arose for determination :

i)                    Whether the complainant is a consumer within the meaning of the  C.P. Act, 1986 ?

ii)                  Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. nos. 1 to 3,

WBSEDCL Authority ?

iii)                Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief and compensation as prayed for? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

POINT  NO. 1

5.               Perused the necessary enclosures as submitted by the complainant including letter dated 26-06-2013 wherein it is noticed that the complainant failed to deposit necessary application money / consolation amount together with standard form as applicable where he has been registered himself as a bonafide consumer as per WBSERC  Regulations. Moreover, there is no cogent evidence put forward before the Forum where he himself considered to be a consumer as per Section 2(1)(d) of the C.P. Act, 1986 as amended upto date for which Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 will not be applicable against the licensee i.e., WBSEDCL Authority.

6.               In this juncture Section 2(10(d) of the  C.P. Act, 1986 cannot come into operation as there clear cut finding in the said Section. The Forum canno consider any case unless and until he registered himself as a consumer before the licensee by deposition EMD money as a consolidation money as per norms.

7.               In this reason we are of the clear view that the instant complaint is not maintainable as a complainant is not considered to be a consumer as per Section 2(1)(d) of the  C.P. Act, 1986.

Point nos. 2 & 3  

8.               As the complainant is not treated as consumer as cited above so the question of consideration of the point does not applicable at this stage. In this result, we are of the view that we are not in a position to give any relief and advice to take further steps accordingly as per norms.  Both the points are accordingly disposed of.

      Hence,

                                    O     R     D      E      R      E        D

            That the C. C. Case No. 263  of 2013 ( HDF 263 of 2013 )  be  dismissed on contest but  without costs.

      Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.  

  (   P. K. Chatterjee )                                                         

  Member,  C.D.R.F.,Howrah.