HDF CASE NO. 65 OF  2010

Order No. 2   

Date : 16-08-2010.

            One Harun Dewan, son of Hakim Dewan, of village Bankra ( Mullickpra ), P.O. Bankra, P.S. Domjur, District – Howrah, has filed a petition of complaint U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 against the Divisional Manager, WBSEDCL, and the Station Manager, WBSEDCL, for electric connection at his tenanted shop alleging deficiency in service.

            The complaint petition is also supported by vakalatnama and annexures xerox copies of documents filed therewith. A demand draft of Rs. 100/- is also filed with the application.

            The case is taken up for admission hearing.

            Heard the ld. Advocate for the complainant who submits before us that the complainant is a tenant under the landlord Amjad Ali Sardar in a tenanted premises having one shop room in the ground floor and applied for new electric connection from the o.ps. for commercial purpose. It is further submitted that the landlord of the complainant has got no objection for such connection and the complainant already borrowed loan from the UCO Bank but due to non supply of electricity the complainant’s business is being hampered and losses but the o.ps. did not any respond for new supply of electricity to the complainant’s shop room though the complainant has complied all formalities of electric supply to get connection. Even the o.ps. did not return the deposit money to him. As such it is prayed for necessary direction  to the o.ps. for connection of electric line at an early date.

            Peruse the petition of complaint along with supported documents filed in the case but we do not find that the complainant disclosed in the petition applied for connection for self employment to run his business in the locality. Moreover, it appears from the quotation that complainant has deposited quotation amount of  Rs. 2,185/- with the electricity department as on 25-08-2005 and the said quotation was valid for 60 days in case of private/individual and the  complainant did not file the complaint petition against the o.p. alleging deficiency in service within two years from the date of cause of action i.e., on 25-08-2005.

            Having heard the ld. Advocate for the complainant and upon perusal of the documents we find that the complainant is not a consumer under the C.P. Act, 1986. Moreover, the case is barred by limitation.

            The case is thus not maintainable in the above reason.

Hence, it is,

                    O r d e r e d 

That the complaint petition is not admitted and dismissed.

No order as to cost.

Supply the copy of the order to the complainant, free of costs.