West Bengal

Birbhum

CC/23/2016

J.P. Mondal, S/O G. Mondal Branch - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, C.C.C, Dubrajpur, W.B.S.E.D.C.L - Opp.Party(s)

Samir Kr Chattapadhyay

20 Aug 2018

ORDER

The case of the complainant Jishnu Prakash Mondal, in brief, is that the complainant had made an application to the O.P WBSEDCL, Durbrajpur for electrification of his water lifting submersible pump installed on property near to his residential house for lifting water from a shallow(well) dug on his own land for cultivation of agricultural land.

            It is further case of the complainant that the O.P issued a quotation accordingly to the complainant as per WBSEDCL procedure F/2010 dated 17.03.2015.

            It is the further case of the complainant that in pursuance of said quotation he deposited Rs. 7095/- by two installments by cash receipt amounting to Rs. 3800/- and 3295/- respectively.

            It is the further case of the complainant that subsequent to the deposit of said money the O.P WBSEDCL stretched an electric line temporarily from the nearby pole which remains hazardous condition and the pump installed thereon cannot function properly and inviting the causality to the animal/cattle and human beings and there is very likelihood of being victimized and sustained injury or even loss of life to one which/who in the event of coming in contact with the existing hazardous temporary line.

            It is the further case of the complainant that he has been paid exorbitant amount of electric charges and even filing of application the O.P has not converted the temporary line in to permanent electric line. 

            It is the further case of the complainant that on 25.12.2015 a milking cow succumbed to death when it came in contact with said hazardous line and in consequence of the same the complainant had to pay Rs. 30000/- to the cow owner for inaction of the O.P.

            He served a legal notice upon the O.P but no consequence.

            Hence this for directing the O.P WBSEDCL to convert the temporary eclectic line to permanent line and to pay compensation Rs. 20,000/- for loss of standing crops, Rs. 30000/- for death of milking cow and Rs. 50000/- for harassment and physical and mental injury to the complainant.

            The O.P WBSEDCL, Dubrajpur has contested the case by filing written version denying all material allegation of the complainant, contending inter alia, that the present case is not maintainable and the complainant has no cause of action to brining this case.

            It is the specific case of the O.P that the complainant never submitted a single complaint against the instant connection, he has also never submitted any complaint regarding accident from the LTOH line of WBSEDCL and also there was/are no intimation to local police station by the complainant.

            It is the further case of the O.P that the complainant has not filed any claim petition before the O.P along with proof of death of milking cow due to electric shock, copy of FIR, proof of ownership of the milking cow. So, question of death claim of a cow does not arise. The O.P is in no way caused any harm or injury to the complainant and the case is liable to be dismissed with cost.

  Point for determination.

1.  Whether the complainant is a consumer under Sec. 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act.?
2. Whether this Forum has jurisdiction to try this case?
3. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any other relief or reliefs as prayed for?

DECISION WITH REASONS

During the trial Jishnu Prakash Mondal, the complainant has been examined as P.W.1 and files some documents. PW1 has been cross examined by the O.P WBSEDCL.

PW.2  Dharam Raj Mondal, owner of the cow and he was also cross examined.

O.P has not adduced any oral evidence but files some documents.

 Argument of the Ld. Advocate/Agent of both sides have been heard.

Point No.1:: Evidently the complainant Jishnu Prakash Mondal has an electric connection under the O.P WBSEDCL, Dubrajpur and he is enjoying electric on payment of charges.

So, the complainant is consumer u/s 2(1)(d)(ii) of C.P. Act.

Point No.2:- O.P WBSEDLC, Dubrajpur has Office within jurisdiction of this Forum.

The total valuation of the case is Rs. 1,00,000/- which is far less than maximum limit of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Forum i.e. Rs. 20,00,000/-. So, this Forum has territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction.

Point No. 3 and 4:- Both points are taken up together for convenience of discussion as they are related to each other.

            The complainant in his complaint and evidence stated that the complainant had made an application to the O.P WBSEDCL, Durbrajpur for electrification of his water lift submersible pump installed on property near to his residential house for lifting water from a shallow(well) dug on his own land for cultivation of agricultural land. The complainant further stated that the O.P issued a quotation accordingly to the complainant as per WBSEDCL procedure F/2010 dated 17.03.2015 and in pursuance of said quotation he deposited Rs. 7095/- by two installments by cash receipt amounting to Rs. 3800/- and 3295/- respectively.

            Copy of quotation shows that a quotation was issued on 17.03.2015 and the complainant was directed by WBSEDCL to deposit Rs. 3800/- and Rs. 3295/-. Money receipts show that the complainant deposited Rs. 3800/- and Rs. 3295/- totalling Rs. 7095/- for obtaining electric line.

            The complainant in his evidence further stated that subsequent to the deposit of said money the O.P WBSEDCL stretched an electric line temporarily from the nearby pole which remains in hazardous condition and the pump installed thereon cannot function properly and inviting the causality to the animal/cattle and human beings and there is very likelihood of being victimized and sustained body loss or injury or even loss of life to one which/who in the event of coming in contact with the existing hazardous temporary line. The complainant also stated that he has been paid exorbitant amount of electric charges and even filing of application by him the O.P has not converted the temporary line in to permanent electric line. 

            Copy of the letter dated 13.03.2015 shows that the complainant has requested the O.P to give electric line into his pump at least temporarily.

            Copy of the legal notice issued by Samir Kumar Chottapadhyay, Advocate, dated 29.01.2016 and A/D Card shows that said notice was duly served upon the O.P.

            It appears that by serving legal notice the O.P/WBSEDCL was requested to convert the temporary line into permanent line.

            We find that in the present case main claim of the complainant has two parts.

Firstly he prayed for conversion of his temporary line into permanent line.

It is the case of the complainant that he made several conversion with the O.P in this respect but in vain.

But we find that only one correspondence is forthcoming before this Forum which is Advocate’s letter dt. 29.01.2016, which was served upon on 03.02.2016 and the complainant filed the present case on 29.02.2016 i.e. within one month of service of notice upon the O.P.

We further find that nowhere in quotation or money receipt there is any mention that electric connection in question was temporary in nature.

We find that second allegation of the complainant that the O.P/WBSEDCL gave electric connection to his pump from nearby pole and said line remains in hazardous condition and any accident may happened if any animal/cattle/human being contacts with such line.

 

 

It is the further case of the complainant that one milking cow contacted with such line and has died due to electric shock. He was compelled to pay Rs. 30,000/- to the cow owner as compensation.

PW.2 Dharama Raj Mondal has come to the Forum to support the case of the complainant stating that his cow had died due to electric shock, when it came to contact with lying hazardous line of the complainant.

But there is nothing to show that the complainant lodge any FIR before the Police regarding alleged accident. The complainant/PW2 has not filed any document to show ownership of the cow in question.

No P/M or any report is forthcoming before this Forum regarding alleged death of cow.

The complainant has also failed to produce any paper to show that any intimation was given to O.P/WBSEDCL regarding alleged accident and death of the cow.

There is also nothing to show that the complainant submitted any application before the O.P/WBSEDCL claiming compensation for death of cow.

The complainant has filed two photographs without any negative and supporting evidence.  We find that it is very much difficult to connect the said photographs with the present case.

Considering overall matter into consideration and materials on record we are constrained to hold that the complainant has failed to prove his case and also failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.

Thus these points are decided against the complainant. Case fails.

Proper fees have been paid.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

that C.F case No. 23/2016 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the O.P without any cost.

Copy of this order be supplied to the parties each free of cost.