In the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Murshidabad

Berhampore, Murshidabad.

Case No. CC/163 /2014

Date of filing: 26/11//2014                                                                                                                                         Date of Final Order: 28/03/2016

Amasul Mondal,

S/O-Atahar Mondal,

Vill.-Sekhalipara, P.S.-Domkal

Dist- Murshidabad.……………………………...Complainant                                                                                       

             - Vs-

 The Engineer/ Supervisor,

 Power Grid Corporation of India Limited,

 Present Address at Vill.-Dakhingram, Palsanda,

 P.S.- Nabagram.Dist.- Murshidabad.PIN-742238.(W.B.)…………….……….  Opposite Party

Present:     Hon’ble Member, Samaresh Kumar Mitra.

                                                          Hon’ble Member, Pranati Ali.

FINAL ORDER

Samaresh KumarMitra,Member.

By filing this complaint u/s 12 of the C. P. Act 1986, the complainant Amasul Mondal prays for an order directing the OP to pay the entire loss amount of Rs.1,20,000/- as compensation towards indemnifying the loss incurred by the petitioner for cutting down 800 pcs of well grown Bamboo trees.

The case of the complainant, in brief, is that for the purpose of providing electricity from Murshidabad to Bangladesh during the extension of 400 KV D/C electric lines from Berhampore(W.B.) to Bheramara ( Bangladesh), The Power Grid Corporation of India Limited, Berhampore on 21/08/2013 sent the OP who instructed the petitioner and his wife to cut down well grown Sishu and Mango trees and also 800 pieces of Bamboo trees which was well grown on the land of the petitioner obstructing the passage of the electric lines over the land and the OP also verbally assured the petitioner that for cutting down the treessufficient compensation shall be provided to the petitioner and his wife being asimple and peace loving villagepersons agreed to the said instruction of the OP and chopped down the tress thereby clearing the way for the extension of the electric lines. The petitioner approached the OP for providing the compensation towards indemnifying the loss incurred by the petitioner by cutting down the well grown trees as instructed and promised by the OP. But the Power Grid Corporation of India limited only paid the compensation towards indemnifying the loss incurred by the petitioner to the extent of 200 pieces of Bamboo trees which the petitioner refused to accept and declined as the compensation for cutting down the rest 600 pieces of Bamboo trees remained unpaid. The petitioner on several occasions has intimated the OP to pay the outstanding compensation for cutting down the total 800 pieces of Bamboo trees but the OP has turned deaf ears towards the petitioner. Then the wife of the complainant filed a complaint before the Domkal P.S. Immediately after that the OP came to the petitioner and his wife and requested them to remain patient for some time and their compensation shall be paid in full to them. The petitioner once again intimated the matter to the OP through registered post on 12.6.2014. Thereafter the OP requested the petitioner to keep patience as necessary step has taken towards providing the compensation but till the filing of the complaint no steps taken so he took the shelter of this Forum for redressal as prayed in the prayer portion of the complaint.

Sole OP appeared by his agent and filed w/v denying the allegations as leveled against him. He averred that while drawing electric line from Berhampore (W.B.) to Bheramara (Bangladesh),under the Indian Telegraphs Act,1885, some Bamboos bearing Nos 200 standing on the land belonging to the complainant were required to be removed to facilitate drawing line to Bangladesh. So, 200 Bamboos were cut down and compensation @ Rs.100 per Bamboo totaling a sum of Rs.20,000/- was received by Tapu Khatun, the daughter of the complainant on 8.12.2014 from theOP granting receipt therefore. The complainant adapted unlawful means of forgery to get more money by deceitful manner by stating 800 Bamboos instead of 200 Bamboos. Hence the case is liable to be rejected with cost.

        The argument as advanced by the advocate of the opposite party heard in full. The advocate on behalf of the complainant was absent on call and no steps taken on his behalf. It appears from the case record that the complainant was absent on a few days and none advanced argument on his behalf. The complainant filed the instant complaint by filing affidavit alongwith relevant documents but did not file any evidence. So, this Forum has no impediment to adjudicate the matter on merit in accordance with the provisions of Sec.13(2)(c) of Consumer Protection Act,1986.  

From the discussion herein above, we find the following Issues/Points for consideration.

ISSUES/POINTS   FOR   CONSIDERATION

1). Whether the Complainant Amasul Mondal is a ‘Consumer’ of the Opposite Party?

2).Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?

3).Whether the OPs carried on unfair trade practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards the       Complainant?

4).Whether the complainant proved his case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to him?

DECISION WITH REASONS

   In the light of discussions here in above we find that the issues/points should be decided based on the above perspectives.

(1).Whether the Complainant Amasul Mondal is a ‘Consumer’ of the opposite party?

     From the materials on record it is transparent that the Complainant is a “Consumer” as provided by the spirit of section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. As the complainant herein cut his Bamboos to make way leave for the transmission of electric line and it is admitted by the OP Company being the authority to pay compensation.

     (2).Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?

                Both the complainant and opposite party are residents/carrying on business within the district of Murshidabad. The complaint valued within Rs.20,00,000/- limit of this Forum. So, this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case.                

    (3).Whether the opposite party carried on Unfair Trade Practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards the Complainant?

             The opposite party being the largest Electric Supply Corporation throughout the country having a  lot of offices, power stations, substations and power generating stations decorated with a lot of expert hands and running its business with goodwill for a long period and providing/rendering service for development of society as well as implementing a lot of Govt. programs. So the role of OP Corporation for the development of the society is unquestionable.

                The O.P. herein being the Engineer/ Supervisor of Power Grid Corporation of India limited (A Govt. of India Enterprise) at Vill- Dakhinagram, Palsanda, P.S.- Nabagram, Dist.-Murshidabad is the largest electric supply corporation throughout the  country. The OP Corporation running its business throughout the state except territorial jurisdiction of Kolkata Corporation. The O.P. Corporation is providing power in different projects of states and other nations.

       After perusing the case record and documents as produced it appears that the complainant cut his trees to make way leave for the transmission of power from Berhampore (W.B.) to Bheramara ( Bangladesh) and the Power Grid Corporation of India Limited, Berhampore Construction Office-ER-II, Surya Sen Rd., Berhampore, Murshidabad issued certificate of compensation for way leave under Sec.10 to 19 of Indian Telegraph Act,1885 dated 21.8.2013 in the name of Marjina Bibi w/o- Amasul Mondal ( Complainant herein) and Certified that following tree/ crops/ property have been felled /damaged/ disturbed under the order of the Engineer and left in the possession of the owner, in which in the column of description of trees stated as Bamboo and in the Measurement column-800 Nos and signed by the Engineer/ Supervisor.

     In the written version the OP assailed that the nos of Bamboos was 200 instead of 800 and the OP paid the compensation by the BDO Domkal to Tapu Khatun the daughter of the complainant amounting to Rs.20,000/- as compensation for cutting 200 Bamboos on 8.12.2014. That after filing the w/v on 23.7.2015 by the OP, the complainant did not turn up to file evidence on affidavit and to advance argument. So the allegation of tampering the nos of Bamboos did not discard by the complainant by producing the original copy of receipt dated 21.08.2013. It appears from the case record that the complainant is absent since 20.4.2015 and this Forum constrained to file show cause in that regard but no showcause filed till date and filed no evidence on affidavit and failed to advance argument.

     The agent on behalf of the OP in the argument assailed that according to Sec.16 (3).of Indian Telegraph Act,1885 If any dispute arises concerning the sufficiency of the compensation to be paid under Sec.10, clause (d), it shall, on application for that purpose by either of the disputing parties to the District Judge within whose Jurisdiction the property is situated, be determined by him. So, this Forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the complaint case.

     Considering our findings given in respect of issues the complainants claim made by him through his complaint in question cannot be sustained and hence not accepted. We have therefore no option but to dismiss the complaint. In the result we pass the following order.

4). Whether the complainant proved his case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to him?

            The discussion made herein before, we have no hesitation to come in a conclusion that the complainant is unable to prove his case. So the Opposite Party has no liability to pay any compensation. In the result we pass the following order.

ORDER

            It is ordered that the Complaint Case No.163/2014 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the Opposite party with no order as to cost.

          The OP in exonerated from his liability of paying any compensation to this complaint.

Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their Ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/sent by ordinary post forthwith, for information & necessary action.