West Bengal

Siliguri

34/S/2014

SMT. RAJOSEE BAGCHI - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE STATION MANAGER - Opp.Party(s)

09 Oct 2015

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE LD. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT S I L I G U R I.

 

CONSUMER CASE NO. : 34/S/2014.                DATED : 09.10.2015.  

 

BEFORE  PRESIDENT              : SRI BISWANATH DE,

                                                              President, D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri.

 

 

                      MEMBERS              : SMT. PRATITI  BHATTACHARJEE

                                                              & SRI PABITRA MAJUMDAR.

 

COMPLAINANT                 : SMT. RAJOSEE BAGCHI,  

 D/O Sri Ratan Kr. Bagchi, Hindu by religion,  

 Student in higher Class in occupation, residing 

 at Raja Ram Mohan Roy Road, Hakimpara,

 within Ward No.12 of S.M.C.,

 P.O. & P.S.- Siliguri, Dist.- Darjeeling.

                                                              

O.P.                                       : THE STATION MANAGER,   

  West Bengal State Electricity Distribution

  Company Ltd.,

  Hakimpara Customer Care Centre, Siliguri,   

  P.O. & P.S.- Siliguri, Dist.- Darjeeling.

                                               

                                                                                                                                                                  

FOR THE COMPLAINANT         : Sri Diptiman Mukhopadhyay, Advocate.

 

 

J U D G E M E N T

 

Sri Biswanath De, Ld. President

 

The complainant’s case is that the complainant became owner of premises by virtue of gift deed from her grandmother Smt. Shyamaly Bhattacharjee, executed on 02.08.2006 and registered in the year 2010 before A.D.S.R., Siliguri.  There was no electric connection in the name of said Shyamali Bhattacharjee, W/o of Sudhir Bhattacharjee.  After getting the house, the complainant applied for electric connection to the OP.  The complainant also paid Rs.10,000/- as per quotation price and also Rs.9,836/- as security deposit on 16.01.2014 vide receipt no.6622994.

 

Contd…..P/2

-:2:-

 

 The complainant has a right to get connection within one month from 16.01.2014, but the OP did not pass any order regarding connection.  The complainant got a letter from the OP under Memo No.AE/HPCCC/988 dated 22.02.2014 by which the complainant had been asked to pay 1/3^rd of Rs.79,695/- for getting new service connection since their lying a demand disconnected notice against Consumer ID No.412151580.  The complainant is entitled to get connection.  The OP did not permit that connection.  So, OP is liable for deficiency in service.  Hence, the case praying for relief as per C.P. Act.

The OP filed a written version denying inter-alia all the material allegations as raised by the complainant.  It is stated by the OP that after getting the petition, the Station Manager enquired the matter and informed the complainant that their lying a demand disconnected service connection having outstanding amount Rs.76,895/- against consumer ID No.412151580 in the same building premises wherein the complainant was seeking new service connection in the flat.  Accordingly, the complainant was requested to pay one-third of total outstanding dues amount before effecting service connection.  The OP has acted as per order and regulation framed by West Bengal Electricity Regularity Commission.  As per provision of WBERC dated 07.08.2013, the OP prays for order for dismissal of the complaint.

 

Points for decision

 

1.       Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

2.       Is the complainant entitled to get relief as prayed for ?

 

Complainant has filed the following documents :-

1.       Copy of Gift Deed being No.1454 evidencing ownership of premises of the complainant. 

2.       Copy of receipt No.4836207 dated 09.12.2013 for purchase of application on booklet by the complainant. 

Contd…..P/3

-:3:-

 

3.       Copy of quotation dated 27.12.2013 asking deposit of service connection and security deposit to Complainant by the OP.

4.       Copy of payment of service connection charges under Receipt No.6622993 and copy of deposit of security deposit under receipt No.6622994.

5.       Copy of Memo No.AE/HPCCC/988 dated 22.02.2014 of OP asking Complainant to deposit 1/3^rd of Rs.79,695/- as outstanding dues of previous occupant for her service connection.   

          OP has filed evidence on affidavit.

 

Decision with reason

 

          It is admitted fact that the complainant filed application to get electric connection in her premises. 

It is admitted that complainant deposited some amount of money under receipt before the OP as per quotation.

It argued by the complainant’s ld advocate that complainant has deposited the quotation money.  The complainant is entitled to get connection as per law.  The complainant submitted before this Forum that as per Section 56(2) of Electricity Act, old demand rest in 2014 is not permissible (vide para 11 of complaint).  Accordingly, he argued that delaying in giving supply connection is deficiency in service. 

Whereas ld advocate of the OP quoted the provision of “West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission” Vide Notification No.55/WBERC Kolkata, the 7^th August, 2013, published in The Kolkata Gazette Extraordinary, And this regulation is in supersession of Notification No.36/WBERC dated 12.09.07, which is Repealed and replaced by 55/WBERC dated 07.08.2013. 

Regulation 4.6- Deemed termination of agreement.

4.6.1- If the power supply to any consumer remains disconnected continuously for a period of one hundred and eighty days where the disconnection has been effected incompliance with any of the provisions

Contd…..P/4

-:4:-

 

of the Act or Regulations, the agreement of the licensee with the consumer for supply of electricity shall be deemed to have been terminated with consequential effect on expiry of the said period of one hundred eighty days.

This will be without prejudice to such other action or the claim that may arise from the disconnection of supply or related issues thereof.  On termination of agreement the licensee shall have the right to remove the service line and other installations through which electricity is supplied to the consumer. 

Regulation, 4.6.4 – Notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in these Regulations were deemed terminated of agreement has taken place, then on the basis of application for any consumer new service connection can only be provided in the same premises if the outstanding dues against the deemed terminated consumer is cleared along with the late payment surcharge.

[O.P. WBSEDCL crave leave to file the Regulation against Deemed termination of Agreement].

So, as per provisions of the WBERC, the claim of OP of one-third of that amount as stated hereinbefore cannot be thrown out of this case.  Accordingly, there is no material before this Forum to hold that non-giving connection to the complainant is deficiency in service as per fact of this case.  Rather it is well reasoned and founded on the Circular No.55 dated 07.08.2013.  Accordingly, we are unable to accept the argument of the complainant that the complainant is entitled to get connection without depositing the amount claimed by the OP. 

Thus, the case fails.

Hence, it is

                    O R D E R E D

that the Consumer Case No.34/S/2014 is dismissed on contest.

Let copies of this judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost.