S.S. Ali, Member
The complainant is a consumer of agricultural & irrigational category of electricity vide his Service Connection no.MNA/STW/14378, Consumer no. SS10037and Meter no.RGX24316 (N),RGX24316 (P)& RGX 24316(O) at his plot number 579/1083,J.L. no 241 at Mouza - Baruna for operating submersible pump for agriculture. The complainant under a scheme applied for a permanent and new agricultural Service Connection of electricity at his plot for setting up a “Mini Deep tubewell’’ after fulfilling all formalities. The said scheme was sanctioned by the OP no.1,after performing all formalities. The Electricity Department also sanctioned appropriate percentage of subsidy to the complainant.
After approval of the said scheme on 16.12.10, the complainant deposited Rs.38270/- with OP against Service Connection and then paid further sum of Rs.51761/- to Lakshmi Enterprises, Tamluk, towards supply of Service Connection materials including cost of the transformer as per advice of the OP, which was mentioned in the Quotation no.MNA/T-4/2315 dtd. 15.12.2010. But, the OPs on some pretext delayed in giving the said connection on the ground of non availability of 16KVA DTR transformer and advised the complainant to supply the same by paying further cost of Rs 38,500/- to one Bhanuka Electricals, for purchasing of the said transformer along with other charges from his own pocket, with a promise to refund the said extra amount by cheque within one month. Thereafter service connection was provided to the complainant and the complainant duly paid the monthly bills without fail, but the opposite parties till date failed to keep up to their words given to the complainant to refund the money towards the amount of transformer to the tune of Rs.38500/- paid by the complainant as extra price of transformer inspite of repeated request for several times including legal notice, hence this case.
The OP no. 2 did not appear in the instant case inspite of service of notice. The OP no.1 appeared in this case and contested the case by filling written version as well as written notes on argument, both the parties adduced evidence and they were cross-examined on questioner. The OP states that no words of refund of the money spent by the complainant for purchase of the 16KVA transformer from outside (Bhanuka Electrical) was ever given to the complainant, hence their prayer is for dismissal of the case.
POINTS FOR DECISION
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASON
All the above two points are taken up together for brevity of discussions as they are interrelated. We have gone through the entire evidence adduced by the complainant and materials on record produced by the parties.
Admittedly, (as per note sheet produced on record by the OP no.1 and also other materials on record), the complainant paid Rs.38270/-(in cash) plus Rs.51761/-(cost towards materials supplied by the complainant) for agricultural service connection of electricity on his plot for setting up of a Mini Deep-tubewell. The materials on record produced by the parties also clearly indicates that the cost of the transformer to the tune of Rs.39778/- has been included within the cost/price given by the complainant towards supply of materials for Rs.51761/-. The materials on record show further that the complainant subsequently supplied the transformer after purchasing the same by paying extra cost/price of Rs.38500/-from the enlisted/authorized dealer of the OP namely, Bhankua Electricals dtd. 18.1.2011. Undisputedly, the said transformer supplied by the complainant was used by the OP no.1 for the aforesaid Service Connection of electricity in the plot of the complainant for setting up of a Mini Deep-tubewell though the OP already received the cost towards materials supplied by the complainant including the cost of the aforesaid transformer. The document dtd. 08.08.2011 addressed to the Divisional Manager by the Zonal Manager, Midnapore (D) Zone, WBSEDCL, (filed by the complainant on record)clearly states that “There is hard possibility of availability of transformer and associated material required for effecting STW connection during Bore the intending consumers who are willing to supply materials to get connection, such amount received from those consumers on account of such materials will be refunded”.
The documents filed by the complainant dated 08-01-2011,addressed to the Divisional Manager, by the Zonal Manager clearly states that, as such the bill/estimate filed by Sri Alok Mondal of Bhanuka Electricals shows that he purchased 16KVA transformer at a total price of Rs 38500/- dated 18.01.2011.
That being so, the complainant is entitled to refund of the said sum of Rs.38500/- on account of supply of the said transformer purchased by him with his own cost from Bhanuka Electricals and as such we find that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs for not refunding the money on account of such aforesaid materials (transformer) causing harassment and mental agony to the complainant.
The aforesaid two points are thus disposed of.
Hence, it is,
Ordered
that the instant consumer case being no. 21 of 2011 be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP no.1 and exparte against the OP no.2 with cost of Rs.500/- payable to the complainant by the OPs jointly and severally. The OPs are directed to refund jointly and severally the sum of Rs.38500/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order along with Rs.1000/- for compensation for harassment and mental agony to the complainant.
In case the OPs fail to comply with the aforesaid direction, the complainant is at liberty to execute the order in accordance with the law in which case, the OP shall be liable to pay fine @ Rs. 100/- per diem to the complainant from the date of filing of this case till compliance of this order in toto.
S.S. Ali Dr. S. Dutta A.K. Bhattacharyya
Member Member President
