West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/50/2017

Sri Ranjit Sarkar - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Swapan Bhattacharya

27 Jul 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

        PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.                             

 

Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

and

Sagarika Sarkar, Member

 

   Complaint Case No.50/2017

 

Sri Ranjit Sarkar, S/o-Late Biswanath Sarkar,

Vill-Berballavpur & P.S.-Kotwali, P.O.-Midnapore

Dist: Paschim Medinipur..….………Complainant

Versus

1. The Station Manager, Midnapore CCC, WBSEDCL, Burdge Town, Dist-Paschim Medinipur
2. The Chairman, WBSEDCL, Bidyut Bhaban,  Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700091
3. Sri Dulal Chandra Pain, S/o-Late Shiba Prasad Pain, Vill-Berballavpur, P.S. Kotwali, Post Medinipur, Dist: Paschim Medinipur, Pin-721101,

.....……….….Opp. Parties.

 

For the Complainant:  Mr. Swapan Bhattacharya, Advocate.

For the O.P.             :  Mr. Swapan Bhattacharya & Mr. Somanath Guin, Advocate.                     

                                                                    Decided on: - 27/07/2017                             

                               

ORDER

                         Sagarika Sarkar, Member – This instant case is filed u/s-12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 by Sri Ranjit Sarkar alleging deficiency in service on the part of the above mentioned O.Ps.

                              Contd………..P/2                                         

                                          

                                                                                      

                                                                          ( 2 )

                   Case of the complainant, in brief, is that the complainant a handicapped person is an inhabitant of holding no.1002 of  Midnapore  Municipality of Ber-ballavpur (Dayya Pukur lane) under P.S.-Kotwali Midnapore Dist-Paschim Medinipur in capacity of a tenant under the O.P. no.3. It is stated by the complainant that the land-owner has arranged for  sub-meters for the tenants and as per proportionate consumption the tenants pay the charges for electricity to the  land owners. The complainant has further stated that the O.P. no.3 land-owner has been adopting illegal practice to evict the complainant  along with his  family from the said premises and therefore  refused to receive the amount for charges of  electricity offered by the complainant by Money Order for the months of September, 2016 to October, 2016. The complainant, as stated by him, filed an application before the rent controller Midnapore Sadar to accept the rent payable by him  but the said application is still pending. It is the  specific allegation by the complainant all on a  sudden on 12/09/2016 the O.P. no.1 has disconnected of the  service connection of the meter where from the complainant was enjoying electricity  and immediately after the said disconnection the complainant  rushed to the O.P. no.1 to know the cause of disconnection  and in reply, he came to know that due to non-payment of electric bill by the land-owner prompted by the O.P. no.1 to disconnect the said service connection. It is further stated by the complainant that he  brought the said matter into the  knowledge of the sub divisional officer Midnapore Sadar on   09/11/2016 and son of the complainant  also filed an application before the O.P. no.1 for a new service connection in the rented portion  of the premises inhabited by them  in response  to which the O.,P. no.1 asked the applicant to pay  the outstanding amount in respect of the connection having I.D. no.212075126 which was owned by the  land-owner  O.P. no.3. It is further stated by the complainant that the sub-divisional officer,  Midnapore Sadar requested the O.P. no.1 vide notice dated 25/01/2017 vide memo no.3231/Sadar to take necessary action for providing connection  to the said premises but the O.P. no.1 informed the S.D.O.  Midnapore that the disconnection took place due to non-payment of the outstanding amount of Rs.17,824/- and for providing connection the said amount was required to be paid. The complainant specifically stated that there was no latches on his part in making payment for electric charges but it is the land owner who refused to accept the same and kept the payable amount unpaid.

   Contd………..P/3                                         

                                         

                                                                                         

                                                                      ( 3 )

Accordingly the complainant has prayed for direction upon the  O.P. no.1 to provide electric connection to the rented  portion of the premises inhabited by him  and to pay the cost of litigation.  

                 The O.P. nos. 1, 2 & 3 contested the case and filed written versions.

                 In their written versions the O.P. nos. 1 & 2 have denied all the material allegations level against them stating interalia, that since the payable amount in respect of the service connection having consumer I.D.212075126 remained unpaid they have disconnected the said service  connection and as per provision of Electricity Guide Line WBERC/46, clause 13.9 a new connection  may be  given to the said premises after receiving the amount towards outstanding dues.

                The O.P. no.3 filed a separate written version denied interalia all the material allegations level against him and stated that the complainant ought to have paid outstanding amount in relation to the meter having consumer I.D.212075126 as thus to have the connection through that meter but, instead he applied for a new connection.

              Parties adduced evidence followed by cross-examination.                   

Points for determination.

1. Whether there is deficiency on the part of the O.P.s ?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for ?

 

                                Decision with reasons :

              Point nos. 1 & 2.

                              Both points are taken up together for comprehensive discussion and decision.

                           Admittedly, the complainant is a tenant under the O.P. no.3 and has been residing in the premises  holding no.1002 of Midnapore Municipality under P.S.-Kotwali, Midnapore, Dist-Paschim Medinipur.

                             Since long, the complainant had been enjoying electricity service through a service connection having consumer I.D.212075126 .

                            Admittedly, there is an outstanding amount  of Rs.17,824/- in respect of the service connection having I.D.212075126.

                             In the petition of complaint the complainant has stated that his son approached the O.P. no.1 authorities for providing a new service connection to the said premises where the complainant was residing in response to which  the O.P. no.1 authorities intimated him that  the new service connection  was possible only after payment  of the outstanding amount.

Contd………..P/4

                                         

                                                                             

                                                                      ( 4 )

 Further, at the time of deposition the PW-1 has stated that the complainant has no dispute  with the O.P.-Electricity Board rather the complainant has dispute with the O.P. no.3.  But fact remains that the complainant sought relief against the                           O.P.-Electricity Board  and not against the O.P. no.3 landowner.

The O.P.-W.B.S.E.D.C.L. in their written version has stated that as per provision of clause no.13.9 of WBERC/46of Electricity Guide Line new service connection may be given but only after receiving the outstanding amount in respect of the said premises and these facts have been intimated to the son of the complainant  who approached them for new service connection.  However, clause no.13.9 WBERC/46 Electricity Guide Line runs as  For getting new connection for supply of electricity from a licensee an intending consumer shall be required to pay all outstanding dues to the licensee in respect of any other service connection held in his/her name located in the area of supply of the same licensee and he/she shall also  be responsible for payment  of outstanding charges calculated in a prorated manner, if it is  established that  he/she has had a nexus with the previous consumer(s) including the purchaser/the new lessee/the new tenant of property or a portion thereof in respect of which there are outstanding charges and/or who had benefited from non-payment of the aforesaid outstanding dues by the previous consumer(s) to the licensee.

Therefore, it is evident that the O.P.-W.B.S.E.D.C.L. expressed to take step in accordance with the provision of electricity guide line and it is in no way to be  considered as any  fault, imperfection,  short coming or inadequancy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service. Thus no deficiency in service is hold against the O.P.-WBSEDCL.

However no relief has been sought against the O.P. no.3 land-owner.

The Ld. Advocate for the complainant has cited the decision of Hon’ble SCDRC, W.B. dated 12/07/1994, S.C. Case no.131/A of 1994  where in the Hon’ble SCDRC held that the complainant might get the electricity service connection after making payment of outstanding  dues.

Considering the facts as mentioned herein above we are of opinion that the complainant failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of those O.Ps.  against whom he has sought for relief.  However, liberty may be given to the complainant to

Contd………..P/5                                         

                                          

                                           

                                                                       ( 5 )

approach the O.P.-WBSEDCL for new service  connection after payment of outstanding dues  in respect  of the promises to which he intends to have the  connection.

 In the result, the petition of complaint does not succeed.                                        

                                      Hence, it is,

                                                           ORDERED

                                       that consumer complaint case being no.50/2017 is dismissed but considering the circumstances without cost.

               The complainant is that liberty may be given to approach the O.P.-WBSEDCL.

               Let plain copy of order be given to the parties free of cost.

                Dictated and Corrected by me

                      Sd/-S.Sarkar                                                                Sd/-B. Pramanik

 

                          Member                                                                          President 

                                                                                                             District Forum

                                                                                                         Paschim Medinipur