West Bengal

Cooch Behar

CC/77/2018

Umar Ali - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sri Santosh Kr. Sah

25 Oct 2019

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
B. S. Road, Cooch Behar -736101.
Ph. No. 03582-230696, 222023
E-mail - confo-kb-wb at the rate of nic.in
Web - www.confonet.nic.in
 
Complaint Case No. CC/77/2018
( Date of Filing : 27 Sep 2018 )
 
1. Umar Ali
S/o. Baurha Miya, Natun Boxirhat, Vill. Chhoto Nalangibari, P.O. Patchara, P.S. Kotwali, Dist. Cooch Behar-736157.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. The Station Manager, W.B.S.E.D.C.L.,
Newtown CCC, Morapora Chowpathi, Newtown, P.S. Kotwali, P.O. & Dist. Cooch Behar-736101.
2. The Divisional Manager, W.B.S.E.D.C.L.,
Cooch Behar Division, N.N. Road Bye Lane, Opp. of N.N. Park, P.O. & Dist. Cooch Behar-736101.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. SUDIP NIYOGI PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. DEBANGSHU BHATTACHARJEE MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:Sri Santosh Kr. Sah, Advocate
For the Opp. Party: Sri Dhrubajyoti Karmakar, Advocate
 Sri Dhrubajyoti Karmakar, Advocate
Dated : 25 Oct 2019
Final Order / Judgement

 

Hon'ble Mr. Sudip Niyogi, President

The Complainant filed the instant case u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 stating that he is a permanent resident within the jurisdiction of this Forum and he had applied for electric connection in his residential house from Op No.1. He also deposited the amount as per quotation issued by OP No.1 on 29.08.17 in respect of his Application No.40020000931 but despite that fact, no electric connection was provided to his house.  He then took up the matter with the Assistant Director, Consumer Affairs and Fair Business Practice, Regional Office, Cooch Behar, but to no effect and finally he filed this case alleging that there was negligence on the part of the Ops to provide electric connection to his house.

The Ops contested the case by filing written statement whereby Op No.1 denied the allegation of negligence on their part in providing electric connection to the house of the Complainant.  Rather, Op No.1 contended that some material facts were not disclosed by the Complainant in the documents, which were required to be filed for getting new electric connection.  However, subsequently, after being satisfied, the electric connection was provided to the Complainant’s house.  So, Ops prayed for dismissal of the instant complaint.

Both the parties filed their evidence on affidavit, written argument and also the documents in support of their respective case.  On the basis of the fact, the following points are required to be adjudicated upon.

POINTS  FOR  CONSIDERATION

  1. Is the Complainant a Consumer as per provision under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986?
  2. Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?
  3. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, as alleged?
  4. Whether the Complainant is entitled to any relief/reliefs, as prayed for?

DECISION WITH REASONS

Point No.1 and 2.

In fact, neither of the parties has agitated on these two points.  From the petition of complaint, it is clearly found that the instant complaint is maintainable and also this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

 

Point No.3 and 4.

Admittedly, the Complainant had applied for electric connection to his house and pursuant to the quotation issued by OP No.1, Complainant deposited the amount in due time.  According to the Complainant, as no electric connection was provided by Op No.1, he has been suffering from difficulties, mental pain and agony.  So, he applied to the Ops and later also to the  Assistant Director, Consumer Affairs and Fair Business Practice, Regional Office, Cooch Behar for settlement through mediation but as nothing came out of that process, he was compelled to file the complaint with this Forum, thereby making an allegation of negligence in service on the part of the Ops.

The petition of complaint reveals the following reliefs, which have been claimed for direction upon the Ops:-

  1. To provide electric connection to the house of the Complainant.
  2. To pay Rs.10,000/- for mental pain and agony of the Complainant.
  3. Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for not providing electric connection to his house.
  4. To pay for litigation cost.

 

On the other hand, the Counsel for Ops while narrating their case submits that it is not at all true that the electric connection has not been given to the house of the Complainant.  The said service connection to his house was already provided on 12.11.18 but despite that fact, Complainant continued with this present case.  This apart, it is submitted on behalf of the Ops that initially there was delay in giving service connection but that delay was due to non-discloser of materials fact in the documents filed by the Complainant.  Our attention has been drawn to the provision i.e. Annexure “A “of WBSEDCL Procedures- A(2010) for new electric connection, which requires some declaration by the intended customer/consumer about any other connection in the said premises.  Relevent portion of the said Annexure runs like this:-

“…………. I/We hereby further declare that there is no other service connection/line disconnected given/was given by you in my /our name(s) in the premises for which the new service connection is being applied for.

…………. I/We hereby further declare that I/We have service connection in my/our name(s) in the premises at ………………………………………(address of the premises) where electricity is supplied by you and that there is no outstanding dues in respect of that service connection.”

According to the Ops, in the same premises Complainant’s brother Samser Ali had electric connection but there was huge outstanding dues of Rs.26,596/- and this matter was pointed out orally to the Complainant.

It is also submitted that Complainant did not produce any valid paper to show that he was residing separately from his said brother.

Be that as it may, we find that during pendency of this case, the electric connection has already been provided to the house of the Complainant long back on 12.11.18, may be after being satisfied with the claim of the Complainant.

This fact has not been stated and/or informed by the Complainant neither in his petition of complaint (by way of amendment), nor in his evidence on affidavit nor in the written argument though the evidence on affidavit and the written argument were filed by the Complainant long after the said service connection to his house was provided.  We do not know the reason behind this.

However, here in this case, from the materials on record and hearing the submissions made on behalf of both the parties, we do not find any reason to disbelieve the reasons shown by the Ops which contributed to the delay in providing electric connection to the house of the Complainant.  So, it cannot at all be said that there was negligence on the part of the Ops in supplying electric connection to the Complainant’s house. Therefore, no question arises for awarding any compensation etc. to the Complainant. Accordingly, the instant case is liable to be dismissed.

Hence,

          It is ordered

          That the instant case be and the same is dismissed on contest.

Let plain copy of this Order be supplied to the parties concerned by hand/by Post forthwith, free of cost for information & necessary action, if any. The copy of the Final Order will also be available in the official Website: www.confonet.nic.in.

Dictated and corrected by me.

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. SUDIP NIYOGI]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. DEBANGSHU BHATTACHARJEE]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.