West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/78/2016

Sri Soumen Kundu - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Kankana Ganguly

27 Feb 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

Bibekananda Pramanik, President

And

  Kapot Chattopadhyay, Member.

   

Complaint Case No.78/2016

 

             Sri  Soumen Kundu, S/o Sunil Kundu, Prop. M/s Kundu Enterprise, Dewanmaro,

             Word no.21 under Kharagpur Municipality, P.O. Nimpura, P.S. Kharagpur

             (Town), District Paschim Medinipur.………..………..……Complainant.

                                                                              Vs.

1)The Station Manager, Malancha C.C.C., Malancha Lal Bunglow M.W. Road, W.B.S.E.D.C.L., P.O. Malancha, P.S. Kharagpur (Town), Dist.  Paschim Medinipur,

2)The Divisional Manager, Kharagpur (O&M) Division, Bhakti Bhawan, W.B.S.E.D.C.L., P.O. Kharagpur, P.S. Kharagpur (Town), District Paschim Medinipur,

3)The Regional Manager, W.B.S.E.D.C.L., Paschim Medinipur, 2^nd Floor, Administrative Building, Burdge Town, P.O. Medinipur, District Paschim Medinipur

                                                                                        ....……….………..Opp. Parties.

                                                    

              For the Complainant: Mr.  Kankana  Ganguly, Advocate.

              For the O.P.               : Mr. Swapan Bhattacharya, Advocate.

 

Decided on: -27/02/2017

                               

ORDER

                          Bibekananda Pramanik, President – Facts of the case, in brief, is that the complainant Sri Soumen Kundu is an unemployed person and for his livelihood he decided to start a business of Bearing manufacturing in the year 2011 at Nimpura under              P.S. Kharagpur within the jurisdiction of this Forum.  The proposed name and style of the said business was Kundu Enterprise.  On 30/08/2011, the complainant accordingly made an application before the opposite party no.1 for installation of a new electric service

Contd……………..P/2

 

( 2 )

connection in his said project area and he also paid requisite fees of Rs.2,000/- only to the opposite party no.1.  After considering the said application, the opposite party no.1 issued a quotation to the complainant on 21/11/2011.  In the said quotation the O.P. No.1 demanded a sum of Rs.2,63,306/- only out of which Rs.1,24,250/- was claimed as service connection charge  and Rs.1,39,056/- as security money.  Complainant paid the entire sum of Rs.2,63,306/- to the opposite party no.1.  After such payment, some employees of the opposite party no.1 came to the proposed spot of business of the complainant and asked him to make a separate room for installation of a new meter.  Accordingly, complainant completed the construction of the said room by incurring an expenditure of  Rs.1,00,000/- only.  After completion of that room, complainant requested the opposite party no.1 to install the meter by sending  written representations dated 30/12/2013 and 10/01/2014 but the opposite party no.1 did not effect the service connection to the complainant. It is stated that after payment of quotation money, the complainant installed transformer and paying Rs.95,000/- as transformer charges. He also completed the work of installation of main switch and wiring by incurring a total sum of Rs.2,45,000/-. He also incurred a sum of Rs.50,000/- only for construction of the entire project.  Opposite party no.1 harassed the complainant for a long time and he did not provide new service connection to the complainant with mala fide intention as a result of which the entire project of the complainant has been cancelled and the complainant has suffered huge monitory loss.  Thereafter the complainant met the opposite party no.1 and requested him to refund Rs.2,63,306/- which has been paid as service connection charge and security charge.  Thereafter on 09/04/2016, the opposite party no.1 gave a cheque of Rs.1,39,056/- only and disclosed that the complainant is not entitled to any other payment.  Hence the complaint, praying for directing the opposite party no.1 to refund Rs.1,24,250/- which he received as service connection charge with interest and for an award of Rs.7,45,000/- for the cost of construction of new meter  room, installation of new transformer and other wiring works of the project site and for an award of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-.

                  The opposite parties have contested this case by filling a joint written objection.

                   Denying and disputing the case of the complainant, it is the specific case of the opposite parties that the present case is not maintainable, that the complainant has no cause of action, that the case is barred by Electricity Act and that all the allegations made against the opposite parties are false.  It is also the case of the opposite parties that the complainant was an Industrial Service Connection Holder and for that he has paid Rs.1,24,250/- only as service connection charge and deposited Rs.1,39,056/- as security

Contd……………..P/3

 

( 3 )

deposit.  The erection order was issued from Kharagpur Division vide memo no. KD/T/CON/737/510 dated 20/12/2011 and the said work was executed accordingly.  After execution of work, it was not possible to generate System generated work order from C.R.M. due to applied load greater than 50 K.V.A. and as such it was sent to the office Manager, Medinipur.  All these proceedings were known to the complainant and all information for necessary particulars were sent to the complainant from the Regional Office, Medinipur, but even thereafter the complainant did not take proper step for long time and thereafter the complainant prayed for refund of the quotation amount and the quotation amount of Rs.1,39,056/- was duly refunded to the complainant before filing of this case.  It is stated that the complainant is therefore not a consumer and he cannot get any reliefs, as prayed for.  As per ERC guide line vide notification no.51/W.B.E.R.C. Clause 7.1., the complainant is not entitled to get refund of Rs.1,24,250/- which was deposited by him as ‘service connection charge’.  It is stated that opposite party no.1 is not empowered to refund the security money.  It is further stated that a joint inspection was conducted on 28/3/2014 in presence of the complainant and W.B.S.E.D.C.L. officials and at that time clear instruction was given to the complainant for construction of the meter room.  Thereafter vide letter no. R.M./PMRO/Bulk/936 dated 28/07/2014, the complainant was directed  to construct the meter room as per W.B.S.E.D.C.L. specification but the complainant did not give any reply and as such the opposite parties have no deficiency in service. Ops. therefore  claim dismissal of the complaint.

                 To prove their respective cases, the complainant has examined himself as PW-1 by tendering a written examination-in-chief and during his evidence, few documents were marked as exhibit 1 to 13 respectively.  On the other hand, opposite party has examined one witness namely Smt. Ila  Koley as OPW-1 and during her evidence, few documents were marked as exhibit A to J respectively. 

                                                                 Points for decision

1)Is the case maintainable in it’s present form and prayer ?

2)Is there any deficiency in service  on the part of the opposite party ?

3)Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs, as sought for ?  

Decision with reasons

       For the sake of convenience and brevity, all the above points are taken up together for consideration.

       The following facts are remained undisputed:-

       Admittedly the complainant submitted application on 30/08/2011 before the opposite party no.1 for installation of a new electric service connection in his project named

Contd……………..P/4

 

                                                                                                  ( 4 )

and styled as  Kundu Enterprise and opposite party no.1 also issued a quotation to the complainant on 21/11/2011 demanding a total sum of Rs.2,63,306/- towards service connection charge of Rs.1,24,250/- and Rs.1,39,056/- as security charge.  After payment of the said quotation money, the employees of the opposite party no.1 came to the proposed spot of business of the complainant and asked the complainant to build a separate room for installation of new meter.  According to the complainant, after completion of that room, he requested the opposite party no.1 to install the meter by sending  representations dated 30/12/2013 and 10/01/2014 but the opposite party no.1 did not effect any new service connection to the complainant.  After waiting for a long time, the complainant was compelled to request the opposite party no.1 to refund the quotation money of Rs.2,63,306/- but the opposite party no.1 only sent a cheque of Rs.1,39,056/- and disclosed that the complainant is not entitled to get any further amount.  As against this, it is the case of the opposite party that they sought for some information regarding necessary particulars from the complainant but the complainant did not take any steps for a long time and he thereafter prayed for refund of the quotation amount and accordingly a sum of Rs.1,39,056/- which was deposited as security charge was refunded to the complainant but the opposite party no.1 was not empowered to refund the amount of service connection charge as per ERS  guide line vide notification no. 51/W.B.E.R.C. Clause 7.1 and it has been only empowered to the Regional Office,  PMRO to refund the said money.  From exhibit-A, which is a document relied upon by the O.P., we find that in paragraph 5 of the said letter (Exhibit-A) that after execution of work the office of O.P. no.1 was unable to generate System Generated Work Order from C.R.M. due to applied load greater than 50 K.V.A.  In paragraph 6 of that letter it has been admitted by the O.P. no.1 that unfortunately the petitioner/complainant did not get the said service connection from the Regional office, P.M.R.O. and he prayed before the office of O.P. no.1 on 16/3/2016 for refund of quotation amount.  It thus appears that due to latches of the O.Ps., the said service connection in question was not given for which the complainant prayed for refund of the quotational amount.  Admittedly, security deposit of Rs.1,39,056/- had been refunded to the complainant by the O.P. no.1.  It is not denied and disputed that the service connection charge of Rs.1,24,250/- has not been refunded to the complainant.  On this score, we find from paragraph 8 of that letter (exhibit-A) that the said service connection charge has not been refunded as per Hon’ble E.R.C guide line vide notification no.53/W.B.E.R.C., 7.1.  Said notification has been filed by the O.P. by marking Annexure  H.  From that notification, we find that the said notification came into force on the date of publication in official gazette on 2^nd April 2013.  Admittedly, the quotational amount in question was deposited by the complainant as per quotation dated 21/11/2011 and

Contd……………..P/5

 

 

( 5 )

 the complainant deposited the said amount prior to the publication of the said notification.  Therefore the said notification is not applicable in connection with this case regarding refund of service connection charge of Rs.1,24,250/-.  So the objection regarding refund of the service connection charge, as raised by the O.Ps., is baseless and they are in duty to bound to refund the said sum of Rs.1,24,250/- to the complainant with interest. Regarding complainant’s prayer for directing the Ops. to pay a sum of Rs.7,45,000/- to the complainant towards the construction of new meter room etc., we find that the complainant has not filed any document to show that he incurred any such amount for construction of any such  new meter room etc.  and therefore we are unable to  allow the said prayer of the complainant. However, we are of the view    that since the Ops. did not install new electric connection for a long time even after receiving the quotational amount, so the complainant is entitled to get compensation for such deficiency in service   on  the part of the O.Ps.

               In the result, the complaint case deserves to be allowed in part.

               All the points are accordingly disposed of.

                              Hence, it is,

                                                     Ordered,

                                 that the complaint case no.78/2016  is allowed in part  on contest with cost against the Ops.  O.Ps are directed to refund the service connection charge of Rs.1,24,250/- to the complainant with interest @ 8% p.a. over that amount w.e.f. the date of filing of this complaint i.e. from 07/06/2016. O.ps are further directed to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/-  as litigation cost to the complainant. All such payments shall be made within one month from this date of order.

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

                 Dictated & corrected by me

                         Sd/-B. Pramanik.                  Sd/- K.K.Chattopadhyay.                Sd/-B. Pramanik. 

                              President                                      Member                                     President

                                                                                                                                 District Forum

                                                                                                                            Paschim Medinipur