The complainant case which is germen in the record is that , complainant is a farmer by profession , for harvesting crop and supplying of water he decided to install a mini deep tube well in his landed land , for this he applied before the oP no.1 . Op no.1 issued quotation dated
1.7.2013 according to which the complainant deposited Rs.6944/- on 1.9.2013. But inspite of receiving money the op no.1 did not take effective step for installation of service connection within the month of September, October . It is also case of the complainant that another of neighboring village made application before the oP no.1 and got service connection quickly. The Op no.1 provided service connection to the oP no.2 prior to giving service connection to the complainant. So, Op no.1 is doing illegal trade practice with the complainant and also deficiency in service. Hence, the complainant approached before this Forum for getting adequate relief.
The Op contested the case by filing Written version denying inter alia all the material allegations of the complainant. It is positive case of the Op no.1 that after getting quotation, the oP no.1 searched the documents and other papers and became known that huge amount of energy bills are lying dues with him. The complainant was asked to clear the dues on 13.02.2014 for making payment of Rs.1,23,834/- and Rs.22, 662/- and for this reason Op no.1 could not able to proceed to give electric connection. Lastly, on 22.4.2004 the complainant was requested by the oP no.1 to clear his dues but complainant did not turn up. On the aforesaid ground the oP no.1 was unable to proceed further. So it is pleaded for dismissal of the complaint.
Complainant has filed copy of letter dated 22.4.2014 sent to the WBSEDCL 2) Quotation bill 3) Copy of Porcha and copy of letter to WBSEDCL. Opposite party on the other hand filed
some documents 1) Letter dt. 22.4.2014 2) copy of Money receipts , 3) Xerox copy of electricity bill. Both the parties file Evidence in chief and Written Notes of Argument etc.
POINTS FOR DECISION
- Whether the complainant is a consumer?
- If there is any deficiency on the part of the oP ?
- If complainant is entitled to get any relief?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
Point no.1
It is admitted fact that the complainant is a consumer under the oP because he has deposited money for taking electricity line to the oP no.1. So there is no need to discuss the point no.1.
Point no.2 and 3
Both the points are taken up together for easiness of discussion.
The complainant stated his case in evidence in chief supporting his written complaint. Complainant has filed Xerox copy of letter addressed to Op no.1 and Xerox copy of quotation which is not legible. On the other hand, Op has raised objection stated his objection in Evidence in chief . The ground of not allowing the application of the complainant as per Op no.1 is that
Op no.1 have two mini deep tube-well connection to which huge amount is due and not paid by the complainant and such information has been gather by the oP no.1 after taking quotation from the complainant and to that effect Op no.1 has filed electric bill in the name of the complainant showing the due amount as stated by the Opno.1 in the Evidence in chief and Written version amounting to Rs.1, 32,068.22p and Rs.22,662/-. But in the complaint and W.N.A. the complainant suppressed this fact regarding due amount as raised by the oP no.1 and that complainant had two mini deep tube well connection.
So, after eying the record with deep thinking and take considering the facts aroused by both sides and perusing appended law in giving election connection and other requirements , this Forum is of opinion that the complainant has not come in clean hand and that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the oP/Electricity company. Hence it is –
Ordered
That the C.C. no. 179 of 2014 be and the same is dismissed on contest but no order as to cost.
Let a copy of this order be made over to the parties free of cost.
