Order No. 13 Dt. 23.04.2015
This is an application u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 filed by Ujir Hossain against W.B.S.E.D.C.L., being deprived of getting electricity connection prayed for an order for immediate electrical connection along with a cost of Rs. 10000/- and Rs.50000/- for mental agony against O.P.
The case of the petitioner is that he applied for a new service connection before Station Manager, Paranpur and adhered to all the conditions of the O.P. along with payment of chargeable money within specified date but O.P. and his staff did not act putting one or the other reasons so he filed the case and he also send advocate’s notice citing 03.07.2013 as the date for cause of action and he annexed photocopies of quotation of date 17.06.2013 and payment on 03.07.2013 and advocate’s notice of 11.07.2014.
The O.Ps contested the case by filing W/V stating that the complaint have no cause of action for the case and mentioned that the complainant applied for getting 4130 watt connection and he is entitled to get the connection but that was not feasible at that time for the want of non-availability of matching materials but O.P. has no objection to give connection to the complainant as per connection supplying serial of applications received by O.P. and thus the complainant has to be stayed for a little bit and as the complainant has no authority to file the case, the complainant’s case be rejected.
In the above cases of the parties following issues are framed:
- Is the case maintainable in its present form?
- Whether the petitioner has any cause of action to file the case?
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
- To what other reliefs the petitioner is entitled to get?
::DECISION WITH REASONS::
Issue Nos. 1,2,3, 4
All the issues are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity of discussion and to skip of reiteration.
In support of the case the petitioner deposed before the Forum as P.W.-1 and deposited four documents marked Ext.1 to Ext-4 and in his cross-examination he categorically stated that the electric department did not refuse to give connection to him and he applied for STW connection for cultivation of Rubi Crops which starts in last part of January. His document Ext. -1 is quotation as per W.B.S.E.D.C.L. procedure – A (2010) in the last portion of it, it is mentioned that “ Security deposit is refundable to the consumer when he / she ceases to be a consumer of W.B.S.E.D.C.L. subject to adjustment of any dues.” Ext.-2 is two money receipts of W.B.S.E.D.C.L. for (i) Total Payable service connection charges of Rs. 7800/- and (ii) security deposit of Rs. 3478/-. Ext.-3 is advocate’s notice with postal delivery proof and Ext.-4 is Identity Card of Ujir, the complainant.
On behalf of O.Ps Sudeb Chandra Dana, Station Manager, Samsi CCC W.B.S.E.D.C.L. appeared as O.P.W.-1 told the serial position of the petitioner in serial list of electricity seeking customers and agreed to provide electric connection to the petitioner as soon as his turn comes.
Ld. advocate for petitioner argued that the petitioner is a consumer and his locus standing is proved. He raised, in agreement for the connection, no point on time-bar was mentioned and again the O.P. in respect of their inability to provide connection did not mention any reasons or do not show or provide any act for such delay. As in spite of depositing money for new connection the petitioner had to suffer to take sessional connection against huge charges and so this is surely a case of deficiency on the part of O.P.
On the other hand Ld.advocate for the O.P. argued that the petitioner is not a consumer but only an applicant and as he is not a consumer he is not entitled to get Meter and as he is not consuming electricity he is not a consumer. However, the Ld.Counsel confirmed that O.P. is ready to provide electric connection to the petitioner following application receiving serial and as per the status of the petitioner there and as the serial is not changeable/ breakable prepared by WBSEB except court order for giving connection.
As per Ext.-1, it clearly proves that once a person pay for security Deposit to W.B.S.E.D.C.L., he becomes a consumer of W.B.S.E.D.C.L. So there is no ambiguity for the petitioner being a consumer of W.B.S.E.D.C.L. and he can very well file the case.
Hearing the Ld.Counsels and looking into the quality of the case this Forum found that the applications for electric connection are much higher than the infrastructure and materials availability at hand of W.B.S.E.D.C.L. that is ,therefore, the question of mis-match appears at the junction of providing electricity as and when asked for and also it is a reality in the scenario of development process and there is no alternative at hand for W.B.S.E.D.C.L. than to prepare list for electricity connection applicators as per their application and demand. Besides, the petitioner has clearly stated that he did not suffer for not getting timely connection and also W.B.S.E.D.C.L. is willing to give connection to him which he willfully agreed.
It also appeared that STW connection is related to ground water usage and its non-raising for electricity connection is not a matter of loss for the petitioner but it is a saviour of ground water, a product of nature, the property of all and everyone.
The Forum also came to the conclusion that once a person becomes a customer as per S E B’s taking deposit money his urge for electricity connection becomes a vital point and his aspirations and grievances are natural and W.B.S.E.D.C.L should have formulated a mechanism to redress those instead of citing serial number of applicants and taking it as an easy pathway for taking money in much advanced time than actual implementation of the job be it unavailability of materials or resources or unavailability of perspective plan or providing services but that, however, cannot become an impediment in the prevailing process of providing electricity.
All the documents along with oral evidence it is established that on the apparent face of the case, O.P’s have no deficiency on their part as per the claim of the petitioner and as such the complaint case does not stand against O.P. i.e. W.B.S.E.D.C.L.
In the result the claim case fails but W.B.S.E.D.C.L. will have to provide electricity connection to the petitioner on immediate basis as per the appearance of the petitioner’s chance as per serial.
Proper fee paid
Hence, ordered
that Malda D.F.C Case No. 66/2014 be and the same is hereby dismissed on contest against O.P.
Let a copy of this order be given to each of the parties free of cost.
