West Bengal

South 24 Parganas

CC/454/2014

SMT. PADMA RAHA, W/O Late Rasomoy Raha - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE STATION MANAGER, WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CO. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

31 Jul 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPLUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , JUDGES’ COURT, ALIPORE KOLKATA-700 027

 

         C.C. CASE NO. _454_ OF ___2014_

 

DATE OF FILING : 16.9.2014     DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT: 31.7.2015__

 

Present                                      President      :      Udayan Mukhopadhyay

 

                                                 Member(s)    :    Mrs. Sharmi Basu & Jinjir Bhattacharya

                                                                             

COMPLAINANT              : Smt. Padma Raha, w/o late Rasomoy Raha of L-71, Kamdahari under

                                             P.S. Bansdroni, Garia, Kolkata – 84.        

 

 

-VERSUS  -

 

O.P/O.Ps                        :The Station Manager, West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited , Garia Customer Care Centre, Garia, P.S Sonarpur, Kolkata-84. 

________________________________________________________________________

 

                                                            J  U  D  G  E  M  E  N  T

 

Sri Jinjir Bhattacharya, Member

 

            The complainant filed this complaint case under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the O.P alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.

            In short, case of the complainant is that she is rightful owner of the premises no.729 under ward no.25 of Rajpur Sonarpur Municipality and also mouza-Kamrakhali, Kamalgazi, P.O Narendrapur, P.S Sonarpur, South 24-Parganas by virtue of a Gift Deed particulars of which have been given in the complaint petition and considered useless to repeat here. The complainant on 27.08.2014 requested the O.P by a letter to disconnect the electric line under Customer ID 115039380 and for a confirmation of disconnection, the electric line being in the said premises. The complainant paid disconnection charge in cash under receipt no.127900592338 dated 28.08.2014. The complainant despite her personal representation in the office of the O.P, did not receive confirmation of disconnection of electric supply as applied for. Hence, the case with prayers for such relief/reliefs as per the petition of complaint.

            The O.P contested the case by filing a written version ,denying inter alia all material allegations agaisnt it. It is stated therein that the service connection was disconnected on 29.8.2014 and the complainant was informed about such disconnection by a letter dated 20.9.2014 which bears No.GCCC/ESTB/0009/1558. It is further contended that reconnection of electricity was again given in compliance with order no.21 dated 8.9.2014 of the Ld. Civil Judge, Jr. Division , 2^nd Court, Baruipur in Title Suit no. TS/260/12 ,alleging that the petition of complaint is false, baseless, motivated and manufactured and denying any willful negligence and/or latches on the part of the O.P; prayer for dismissal of the complaint is made.

            In the course of argument, the complainant submits that the O.Ps letter dated 20.9.2014 confirming disconnection of electric line in respect of her Customer ID no.115039380 was received on 22.9.2014 after admission on the same day of the present complaint petition by the Forum and the intimation was not issued immediately after disconnection. The complainant submits further that he was neither a party nor a witness to the Civil Suit referred to by the O.P, that is, T.S. no. 260 of 2012 Padma Raha Vs. Chandan Ghosh & Ors and there was no direction of the ld. Court upon the O.P to reconnect the said electric line. It is the submission of the complainant that it may be presumed that the O.P suo-moto reconnected the line and the complainant would be made liable to pay electric bill/charges to the O.P for the unlawful reconnection of the electric line by the O.P.

            On the date fixed for argument, that is on 5.6.2015 Ld. Counsel for the complainant was present and his arguments were heard. But there was none for the O.P on the date fixed for argument. Hence, only the complainant was heard. On 15.6.2015 a petition was filed by the O.P for hearing of the O.P. The O.P was given liberty to argue before 18.6.2015 , the date fixed for judgement. But ultimately the O.P did not take part in the argument.

            We have gone through the petition of complaint as well as evidence of both sides. It is an admitted position that the complainant is the owner of the premises in which service connection under “Consumer ID no. 115039380 was provided to the complainant by the service provider O.P. It is further an admitted position that on 27.08.2014 the complainant applied for disconnection of electric line against the connection under Consumer ID no.115039380 and paid service disconnection fee of Rs.40/- under proper receipt granted by the O.P. it is not disputed that the intimation of disconnection of electricity sent by the O.P was received by the complainant only after filing of the instant complaint petition. It is an admitted position that in the Title Suit no. TS 260/12, the O.P was not a party and not a witness. But it is evident from the order no.21 dated 8.9.2014 in T.S.no. 260 of 2012 between Padma Raha, plaintiff Vs. Chandan Ghosh & Ors , defendants that there was a direction for restoration of electric connection the portion of suit premises occupied by the defendants. The O.P effects restoration of service connection to comply with the order of the court. If no disconnection of service connection is made earlier, the question of restoration of connection or re-connection does not arise. The O.P in its evidence has stated that disconnection was made on 29.8.2014. The complainant admits to have received the same ,although after filing of the present complaint petition. In its evidence, the O.P has stated that obeying orders of the ld. Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Division ) ,2^nd Court, Baruipur it has reconnected the service connection in question. The complainant has not dared to produce Any evidence to prove that there has been any misuse or pilferage of power or damages caused to the complainant by any negligent act of the O.P. hence, we hold that the petition of complaint is liable to be dismissed.

            Hence,

                        It is ordered

That petition of complaint is dismissed on contest against the O.P but in the circumstances without any cost.

Let a copy of this order be served upon the parties free of cost.

 

 

Member                                                           Member                                                                       President                                 

Dictated and corrected by me

 

                        Member

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

The judgement in separate sheet is ready and is delivered in open Forum. As it is ,

ordered

That petition of complaint is dismissed on contest against the O.P but in the circumstances without any cost.

Let a copy of this order be served upon the parties free of cost.

 

 

Member                                                           Member                                                                       President