DATE OF FILING : 07-02-2013. DATE OF S/R : 11-03-2013. DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 27-06-2013.
Subrata Tat, son of Sri Balai Ram Tat, residing at 6, Gopinath Chongder Lane, P.S. & District – Howrah.----------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT. - Versus - 1. The Divisional Manager, West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd., 13, Netaji Subhas Road, Howrah – 711 101. 2. The Station Manager, West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd., Andul Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd., Andul Mouri, CCC Electricity Supply, P.S. Sankrail, District – Howrah, PIN – 711 302.-----------------------------------------------------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. Shortly stated, the facts leading to the filing of the present complaint is that the complainant deposited the necessary charges including security deposit for effecting the temporary service connection for the period 26-08-2011 to 25-11-2011 at his premises and thereby the O.P. no. 2 effected the said temporary electric connection. The complainant requested the O.P. no. 2 to refund the said security deposited money of Rs. 3,000/- after completion of the said temporary electric connection but the O.P. no. 2 did not care to repay the said amount against which a notice was served to the O.P no. 2 by the complainant but all attempts were in vein and finding no other alternative the petitioner filed the instant case as he suffered harassment, mental agony and also deprived, prayed relief and compensation from the Forum in connection with this complaint petition. 2. The O.Ps. are contested the case contending interalia denying all the material allegations as in the petition. These answering O.Ps. admitted the fact for effecting the temporary electric connection on 26-08-2011 and was disconnected on 26-10-2011, but unfortunately the said security deposit money could not refund in time due to renovation of supply station and the papers in question were somehow misplaced. They further opined that they have no intention to withhold any amount of any consumer and the O.Ps. are ready and willing to refund the security deposit money of Rs. 3,000/- as and when the petitioner will be ready to take refund the same. 3. Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination : i) Whether the O.Ps. no. 2 has negligent in activities and also deficiency in service by not settling the claim in due time . ? ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief and compensation as prayed for ? DECISION WITH REASONS : 4. Both the points are taken up together for consideration. Perused the evidence adduced by both the parties. Perused also the evidence in opposition filed by the complainant. Considered. 5. It is admitted facts that the complainant got temporary electric connection for the period 26-08-2011 to 25-11-2011 after deposition necessary service connection charges including Rs. 3,000/- as security deposit money to the O.P. no. 2. The complainant claimed for refunding the security deposited money after completion the period of temporary connection. But on the contrary O.P. no. 2 did not take any positive action to refund the claimed amount in spite of issuing notices on the dated 25-11-2011 and lastly sent a legal notice through his ld. Advocate on 31-10-2012 by registered post with A/D to the O.P. no. 2 which was duly received by him on 02-11-2012. 6. From the above and forgoing notes it is to be stated that the O.Ps. had statutory obligation to refund the security deposit money in time to the complainant. In this case the O.P. no. 2 did not pay heed t mitigate the complainant’s grievances resultant the complainant suffered a lot including mental tension. 7. We have gone through the record carefully and also heard the complainant and ld. Counsel of the O.Ps. 8. O.P. no. 2 has taken plea that the relative papers were misplaced due to renovation of the supply station which is not l at all convincing at this position for mitigating the grievances of the complainant viz-viz refunding the genuine claimed amount. 9. In this case kthe O.Ps. harassed the complainant by doing the act of negligence and irresponsible manner which is not expected by a mere common people. It is also not fair that one consumer will be harassed or deprived by the acts of others as a negligent manner. 10. Therefore, we hold our considered opinion that the O.P. no. 2 has deficiency in service by not taking due care for refunding the claim amount against security deposit money of Rs. 3,000/- to the complainant which tantamount gross violation U/S 2(1)(g) of the C.P. Act, 1986 as amended time to time. 11. As it is already proved that the O.P.no. 2 has deficiency in service. Therefore the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for. Both the points are accordingly disposed of. In the result, the complaint succeeds. Hence, O R D E R E D That the C. C. Case No. 34 of 2013 ( HDF 34 of 2013 ) be and the same is allowed against the O.P. no. 2 with a litigation cost of Rs. 2,000/-. The O.P. no. 2 is hereby directed to refund the claimed amount of Rs. 3,000/- ;so deposited as security money against temporary connection already effected and disconnected with interest 9% p.a. from 26-11-2011 within 30 days from the date of this order. No costs against compensation is awarded. The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period. Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule. DICTATED & CORRECTED BY ME. ( P. K. Chatterjee ) ( P. K. Chatterjee ) Member, C.D.R.F.,Howrah. Member, C.D.R.F.,Howrah. ( Jhumki Saha ) ( T.K. Bhattacharya ) Member, C.D.R.F.,Howrah. President, C.D.R.F., Howrah. |