The Counsel of the OP is present. The Counsel of the Complainant is not present.
After going through the course of Record and course of arguments submitted by the Parties it is ordered that the respondent is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- (twenty thousand) which we determine due to the tormentation, mental, physical discomfort due to non- supply of power which is an injury suffered by him. The Opposite Party shall also pay a cost of the Complaint quantified at Rs. 5000/- (five thousand) ie total Rs. 25,000/- (twenty five thousand) only which the Opposite Party shall pay to the Complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of this judgment and finding.
Full order is enclosed in a separate sheet.
Consumer Complaint Case No. 1 of 2017
Shri Yumnam Shyamo Singh aged about 53 years S/o. Y. Naran Singh a resident of Haokha Mamang Leikai Near NRL Oil Station P.O. and P.S. Thoubal, District Thoubal, Manipur
Complainant
Versus
- Managing Director, Manipur State Power Distribution Corporation Ltd. Manipur, Secure Building near 2nd MR Gate, Imphal
- Deputy General Manager, Manipur State Power Distribution Corporation Ltd. Manipur, Thoubal Sub Division, Near Mini Secreteriat Campus, Thoubal
Respondents
P R E S E N T
Smt. L. Lakshmi Devi, Presiding Member
Shri A.C Netrajit, Member
For the Complainant : Y. Shyamo Singh in person with
Shri L. Sharat Singh, Advocate, Khedamani Devi, Advocate, S. Hemanta, Advocate and L. D. Devi, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Managing Director, MSPDCL, Manipur
Deputy General Manager, MSPDCL, Manipur Thoubal Sub Division with
Bheigyachandra, Advocate, Samuphaba, Advocate, Premchand, Advocate and Oken, Advocate
Date of Hearing : 23/11/2021
Date of Judgement : 10/12/2021
Judgment and finding
- This matter was of 2016 which was admitted and in proceeding from 2017 during the existence of a team of President and Members of the Forum, which was interrupted due to ending of their terms. The Forum was reconstituted but due to Covid 2019 pandemic the office was not working with full strength and the Forum is renamed as District Commission of Thoubal District, Manipur. This Commission took up the matter in right earnest in the way as laid down in the corresponding law known as the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
- Heard the Ld Counsels of both the Parties, perused the complaint of the Complainant with the documents filed supported with an Affidavit. Also perused the written objection of the Opposite Party supported with Affidavit and documents. As mandated under Section 38 (B) (6) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 that the Complaint shall be heard by the District Commission on the basis of Affidavit and documentary evidence placed on record, this Commission proceeds to dispose of the Complaint.
- The matter in dispute is very simple that the Complainant is a Consumer of Electric supply of the MSPDCL, the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party is undisputedly a service provider of Electrical energy. It is alleged that the Complainant was Deprived of use of electric energy supplied to him due to the fault and negligence of the Opposite Party for a period of nearly 7 months. It is stated that due to a decision taken up by the MSPDCL, the power line of naked wire had to be replaced by the wire with plastic cover/AB Cable (LT line), due to the necessity of introduction of Prepaid system. Upto this, it is all right, but it is stated that the changing of the wire was delayed negligently by the employees, officers and their workmen that the Complainant had to deprive of the use of electric power for no fault on his part. It is stated that he had to manage light and power in his own way depending upon oil engine and generator by spending his money.
- The Opposite party stated that, in similar case of other Consumers listed in their written objection, the matter of non availability of power, was settled by with the Opposite party by giving power connection from nearest tapping point to Consumer premises irrespective of their require length from their own cost as per departmental norms. The suggestion of which was not agreeable to the Complainant as the Complainant was not ready to bear any expenditure of wire to connect from the far pole or from other private line under their mutual agreement. Thus, the Complainant who could not compromise with the view point of the Opposite party.
- Our attention was drawn by the Complainant at the definition of the expression deficiency in service. Deficiency means any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity of standard which is required to be maintained by or undertaken by a person under a contract or otherwise in relation to a service. In the present case, the negligence of the Opposite party was pointed out that the electric posts were made to stand without following action for wiring for a substantial point of time when the Opposite party has turned a deaf ear to the request of the Complainant violating the right of the Consumer to be heard and assured that Consumer’s interests will receive due consideration. We hold that the assertion of the Complainant has force. The Opposite party could not rebut the Complainant’s submissions.
- For the reasons stated above, we are constrained to hold that the Opposite party is guilty of deficiency in service in relation to the Complainant and liable to pay an amount of Rs. 20,000/- (twenty thousand) which we determine due to the tormentation, mental, physical discomfort due to non supply of power which is an injury suffered by him. The Opposite party shall also pay a cost of the complaint quantified at Rs. 5,000/- (five thousand) i.e. total Rs. 25,000/- (twenty five thousand) only which the Opposite party shall pay to the Complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of this judgement and finding.
The complaint is allowed to the extent indicated above.
AC Netrajit L. Lakshmi Devi
Member Presiding Member
