Debasish Saw alias Show,

son of Sri Basudev Show,

residing at Village & Post – Sealdanga,

P.S.  Jagatballavpur,

Howrah – 711 410.-------------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

1.      The Station Manager,

Bargachia  Group Electric Supply, WBSEDCL,

District – Howrah.

2.      The Divisional Engineer,

Howrah Division,

WBSEDCL, Netaji Subhash Road,

Howrah – 711 101.

3.      The Chairman,

WBSEDCL, Bidyut Bhawan,

Salt Lake City,

Kolkata – 700 091. ----------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.

                                                P    R    E     S    E    N     T

President     :     Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.

Member      :      Shri P.K. Chatterjee.

Member       :     Smt. Jhumki Saha.

                                                 F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

1.                  Shortly stated the fact leading to the filing of the present complaint is that the

complainant Debasish Saw was a bonafide consumer of the O.P. being consumer no. A 046450, S.C. no. 5447 deposited Rs. 2,000/- as a security deposit money at the time of effecting electric connection together with others fees. The said connection had been disconnected by the representative of the O.Ps. as per request of the complainant./ thereafter the complainant prayed for refund of the security deposit money before the O.P. no. 1 who subsequently did not refund the same and harassed ill treated with the complainant as stated . A letter was issued by the complainant to the O.P. no. 1 on 02-06-2011 duly acknowledged the same, but all attempts were in vain and finding no other alternative the petitioner filed the instant case as he suffered harassment mental pain and agony and also deprived, prayed relief and compensation from the Forum in connection with this complaint petition.

2.                  The O.Ps. are contesting the case contending interalia denying all the material

facts / allegation as made in the petition.  This answering O.Ps. admitted the fact regarding permanent disconnection of the said service connection but unfortunately the said  security deposit money could not be refunded in time due to the internal technical constraints. Moreover, this answering O.P. also opined that the competent authority issued a cheque bearing no. 981991 on the dated 15-05-2013 of Rs. 2211/- in favour of the complainant and the same was duly informed on 16-05-2013 and 01-06-2013 respectively over phone and also through a letter dated 18-05-2013 through courier but the complainant denied to accept the request for which deficiency in service on the part of this answering jo.ps. does not hold good and the claim of the compensation is absolutely baseless and false and liable to be dismissed with costs.    

3.                  Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :

i)          Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.  ?

ii)                  Whether the complainant is  entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

4.                  Both the points are  taken up together for consideration. Perused the evidence

adduced by both the parties. Perused also the evidence in opposition filed by the complainant. Considered.

5.                  It is admitted facts that the complainant got electric connection after deposition

of necessary ser ice connection charges including Rs. 2,000/- as security deposit money to the O.P. no. 1. The complainant claimed the refunding deposited money after affected permanent disconnection, but on the contrary, the O.P. no. 1 did not take any positive action to refund the claim amount in spite of issuing notices on the dated 02-06-2013 which was duly received by the O.P. no. 1 in time.

6.                  From the above and foregoing notes that the O.Ps. have statutory obligation to

refund the security deposit against disconnected consumer to refund the security deposit money time to the complainant. In this case the O.P. no. 1 did not pay heed to mitigate the complainant’s grievances resultant the complainant suffered a lot including mental tension.

7.                  We have gone through the records carefully and also heard the complainant

and ld. Counsel of the O.Ps. The O.P. no. 1 have taken some plea that the attempts were made to refund the security deposit of the disconnected consumer but due to some technical constraints the same was accelerated, which is not convincing for mitigating the grievances of the complainant viz-viz refunding the genuine demand of the complainant.  Since the complainant

8.                  In this case the O.Ps. harassed the complainant by do8ing the act of negligence

and irresponsible manner which is not accepted by a mere common people. It is also not fair that one consumer will be harassed or deprive by the acts of other as a negligent manner. In the totality of the facts and circumstances we not only find that the O.Ps. have been grossly deficient in rendering service but have resorted the total false and untenable ground to escape the liability. In our  view they deserve to be strongly dealt with.

            Accordingly, we arrive at the irresistible conclusion that it is a fit case where the prayer of the complainant should be allowed. 

Both the points are accordingly disposed of.

In the result, the complaint succeeds.

      Hence,

O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No. 77 of 2013 ( HDF 77 of 2013 )  be  allowed on contest with costs  against  the O.P.  no. 1 and dismissed without cost against the O.P. no. 2.

      The O.P. no. 1 be directed to refund the security deposit money of Rs. 2,000/- against the service connection with interest @9% p.a. with  effect from 20-09-2007 within 30 days from the date of this order failure to comply the order within the aforesaid stipulated time a penal interest  @ 9%  p.a. will be levied on the entire amount.

      No costs  is awarded in the nature of compensation and litigation.

      The complainant is  at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.

      Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.  

  (   P. K. Chatterjee )                                                          (    P. K. Chatterjee)

  Member,  C.D.R.F.,Howrah.                                         Member,  C.D.R.F.,Howrah.

(  T.K. Bhattacharya  )

President,  C.D.R.F.,Howrah.