DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MALDA, MALDA D.F.ORIGINAL CASE No.28/2008. Date of filing of the Case: Complainant | Opposite Parties | Md.Wahedul Hoque, aged about 45 years, S/o, Late Taleb Ali, Village – Dumuria, Post-Millor, P.S. Harischandrapur, District - Malda | 1) | The Station Manager Bhaluka Group Electric Supply West Bengal State Electric Distribution Company Ltd. Bhaluka Bazar, Post – Bhaluka P.S. Harishchandrapur, Malda | 2) | The Chairman, West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. Bidyut Bhaban, Salt Lake City, Kolkata – 92. |
Present: | 1. | Shri A.K. Sinha, Member | 2. | Smt. Sumana Das, Member | | |
For the Petitioner : Amitava Maitra, Sanjay Kr. Pathak, Advocates For the O.Ps. : Salil Kr. Das, Advocate. Order No. 10 Dt. 08.07.2008 The gist of the case of the petitioner is that he applied for electric connection for his husking mill at Malior Mouza JL No.164, Plot No.895/1831 after taking NOC from the West Bengal Pollution Control Board. The petitioner deposited Rs.2010/- (being application Rs.10/- and earnest money Rs.2000/-) against receipt No.1143 dated 11.10.2007 to Bhaluka Group Electric supply with reference to Memo No.BHES/T-29/1135 dated 11.10.2007. Thereafter the petitioner made several request to the O.P. to issue quotation for new electric connection but neither the quotation was issued nor any electric connection has been provided and this gives rise the present case for the reliefs as have been prayed for in his petition of complaint. The O.Ps. have filed their joint written version denying all material allegations of the complaint. The O.Ps. have denied the petitioner as consumer as per Sec.2 of Electricity Act 2003 and further stated the petitioner has no locus standi to file this case in the Forum, hence the petition is liable to be dismissed. On pleadings of both parties the following points have emerged and have taken for effective disposal of the case. 1. Whether the petitioner is a consumer? 2. whether the service of the O.Ps. suffers from deficiency? 3. whether the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for? :DECISION WITH REASONS: Point No.1: It has been urged on behalf of the O.Ps. that the present petitioner is not a ‘Consumer’ as per Sec.2 sub clause (15) of the Electricity Act 2003 as the petitioner has not been supplied with electricity and unless and until he is being supplied with electricity he cannot claim himself as ‘Consumer’ in terms of Sec.2(15) of Electricity Act 2003. Let us discuss the above point of objection in the light of provisions of consumer Protection Act 1986 amended up to date. According to Sec.2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act ‘Consumer’ means a person who purchase goods or hire services for a consideration, paid or promise, party paid or promised etc. This Forum finds opportunity to refer the observations appearing in Haryana State Electricity Board :Vs: Dinesh Kumar II (1991) CPJ 38(42) : 1991 CPC 455 (Haryana) that “on the larger scheme of the Act; it deserves notice that the same draws a clear distinction between a consumer who purchase goods for consideration and the one who hires any services for the same. Whilst a person purchasing the goods for commercial purpose is ousted from the definition of a ‘Consumer’ a person who hires services for consideration even for commercial purposes, remain squarely within its ambit. The definition of a ‘defect’ pertaining to goods in clause (f) of Sub Sec (1) of Sec.2 of the Act is distinct and different from a ‘deficiency’ in service, which is defined in clause (g) thereof. Both a defect in goods or a deficiency in service will give a cause of action to a consumer, …………… supply of electric energy, therefore, cannot possibly be both “sale of goods” or ‘hiring of services’. It has to be either. When the parliament in its wisdom has expressly placed the supply of electrical energy squarely within the definition of ‘service’ in clause (O), then by no interpretative easistry can this subject be taken out of the definition in clause (O) and thrust or inserted in clause (i). In essence when the Act labels the supply of electrical energy as a ‘service’ are cannot possibly read it as a ‘sale of goods’ by a strained process of interpretation. Holding so would not only be doing violence to the language of the statute, but would be contrary to all sound canons of construction.” Thus from the above view of the matter it can safely be concluded that the present petitioner is a ‘consumer’ as per Consumer Protection Act and the applicant for electric supply can be covered in the definition of ‘potential user’, who has been entertained by receiving application fee of Rs.10/- and earnest money of Rs.2000/- against receipt No.1143 dated 11.10.2007 of Bhaluka Group Electric Supply as evident from Ext.1. This point is disposed of in the affirmative. Point No.2 & 3: Both the points are taken together for simultaneous disposal as they are interrelated. The petitioner has examined himself as P.W. – 1. It appears from the documents filed that he deposited Rs.2010/- against quotation receipt No.1143 dated 11.10.2007 as application fee and Earnest money and the same was received by Bhaluka Group Electric Supply against Memo No.BHES/T-29/1135 dated 11.10.2007 (Ext.1), obtained NOC from West Bengal Pollution Control Board at Malda Branch against the installation of Haque Husking Mill (Ext.3) and also filed other receipt No.088411 and 088412 both dated 11.10.2007 for Bhaluka electric supply against deposit of Rs.10/- and Rs.2000/- respectively (Ext.2). In examination in chief the P.W. – 1 (petitioner) has corroborated the petition of complaint and further added that O.P. No.-1 on receipt of notice of this Forum called him at his office and handed over a quotation of Rs.16,765/- for electric connection and accordingly he deposited the amount against receipt dated 18.06.2008. P.W. – 1 has filed quotation (provisional) No.BHES/T-29/Ind/848 dated 11.06.08 for Rs.16,765/- against service connection charge of Rs.385/- security deposit for 10 H.P. of Rs.12700/- and cost of P.P. Box of Rs.3680/- which is marked Ext.4. He has also filed receipt No.091925 to 091926 all dated 18.06.2008 against above deposits on different count which are marked Ext.5 collectively. In the cross examination P.W. – 1 admitted that he has not purchased the electric motor and no agreement with WBSEB has been done. He also admitted that S.S. Bhaluka visited his premises twice from the date of filing the application for electric connection. He replied to cross-examination that he submitted test report but could not refer the name of the contractor supplied the same, nor he has filed the copy of test report in the Forum. P.W. – 1 denies that no construction for husking meal has been done but admitted that it has been made by bamboo CHATAI on three sides and pacca wall on one side with tin roof. O.P. No.1 has deposed as O.P.W. – 1 on behalf f the O.Ps. This O.P.W. – 1 admitted that he visited the premises of the petitioner once within 10 days of filing the application and for the 2nd time about 7 days from from today. He however admitted that he has not file any document to show as proof of his visits. He also stated that no pacca construction, no electrical wiring and fitting of electric motor at the premises could be seen. He also denied to have received the test report and the receipt of purchase of electric motor for running the husking mill. He also denied that no agreement with WBSEB has yet been done by the petitioner. In cross examination O.P.W. – 1 admitted that he has not issued any separate notice for submitting the Test Report and for execution of agreement with the distribution company. From the pleadings of both sides and careful scrutiny of documents as well as the written version of the O.P. the facts remain that O.Ps. admitted to have late to issue quotation due to official formalities and denied deficiency of service. This denial is considered evasive issuing of quotation to deposit on 11.06.08 after a lapse of about 10 months from the date of deposit (Ext.4) of application fee and earnest money (Ext.2) cannot but be termed as deficiency in service. This Forum also finds opportunity to express its view that petitioner has not yet been able to complete his premises and made ready for providing electric connection. It seems to us that question of signing on agreement is not reasonable as deposit of quotational amount could be made on 18.6.08by the petitioner due to the fault of the O.Ps. Ld. advocate for the O.Ps. however at the time of advancing argument submitted that O.Ps. are ready to provide electric connection on condition that the petitioner will erect necessary construction for installation of wiring setting of electric motor as per quotation and will comply the official formalities No Objection is however raised by the Ld. advocate of the petitioner on the submission of the O.Ps. Both points are thus disposed of. Proper fees have been paid. Hence, ordered, that the Malda D.F. case No.28/2008 succeeds on contest with no order as to cost. Station Manager, Bhaluka Group Electric Supply do provide electric connection within 15 days from the date of completion of structure, wiring etc in the husking mill and observance of other official formalities. The petitioner do take appropriate steps to comply the above requirement s and inform the O.P. in writing about the compliance of the works. In case of failure to give effect to the order by the O.Ps. after fulfillment of the requirements, the petitioner will have liberty to take recourse to law. Let copy of the order be given both the parties free of cost at once. Sumana Das A. K. Sinha Member Member D.C.D.R.F., Malda D.C.D.R.F., Malda | 
