SRI ANUPAM BHATTACHARYYA, PRESIDING MEMBER
The instant complaint is u/s 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying for compensation of Rs. Two Lakhs for non-replacement of defective Isolator and for expenses incurred for pain and agony.
The complainant’s case in brief is that the complainant is a bonafide consumer of WBSEDCL having consumer No.300565565 with his meter No. RSX 71050 for the purpose of sub-mersible pump used for his agricultural land and since installation the isolator was defective and for non-replacement of that isolator he is to suffer loss by paying more money for cultivation. Inspite of inspection of defective Isolator by the staff of the OP on 05.09.2015 on the basis of his application but no replacement. Then, the complainant has filed the instant complaint for compensation. Hence, the instant complainant’s case.
The Written Version filed by the OP, in brief, is that the OP has denied the allegation of the complainant categorically. After getting information Op sent a team and they repaired the same. After availability of material in December,15 they contacted the complainant but did not pay any heed to it, also told that at that time there was no cultivation and asked them to come after Boro Season. They again went on 05.04.2016 on the basis of complaint on 29.03.2016 by the complainant who did not sustain any loss. There is no deficiency in service and for that the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Hence the instant W/V.
Point for decision.
Considering pleadings of both sides the following points have been arranged for the disposal of the case.
- Whether the petition is maintainable in its present form and in law?
- Whether the complainant has any cause of action to file the case
- Whether the case is barred by law of limitation?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for?
Decision with Reasons.
Point Nos. 1 to 4.
All the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience.
The instant complaint is praying for compensation of Rs. Two Lakhs for non-replacement of defective Isolator and for expenses incurred for pain and agony.
The complainant’s main case is that since installation the Isolator was defective and inspite of inspection on the basis of application on 05.09.2015 there was no replacement. Hence, the instant complainant’s case.
On the other hand Op’s case is that the OP has denied the allegation of the complainant categorically. After getting information Op sent a team and they repaired the same. After availability of material in December,15 they contacted the complainant but did not pay any heed to and it also told that at that time there was no cultivation and asked them to come after Boro Season. They again went on 05.04.2016 on the basis of complaint on 29.03.2016 but the complainant forced them to return back. The complainant did not sustain any loss. There is no deficiency in service and for that the complainant is liable to be dismissed.
To prove the case the complainant has adduced evidence on affidavit alongwith several relevant documents in support of his case including yellow card showing Isolator defective on 05.09.15, 26.09.15, 02.11.15, 21.12.15, 17.01.16, 19.02.16 and 20.03.16.
On the other hand the OP/WBSEDCL has not adduced any evidence either oral or documentary to prove their case that their team met the complainant to replace the damaged Isolator in the month of December’15 but the complainant told that as there was no cultivation, the same is not required and on 05.04.16 they forced them to return back without performing work.
Considering the materials on record it is clear that there is no iota of evidence in support of OP’s case that the team of OP went to replace the Isolator and the complainant then told not that the same was required and lastly forced them to return back where the complainant has filed the yellow card showing noting’s of inspection on seven occasions to the effect that the Isolator was defective and no reading could be taken.
On the basis of above discussions it is clear the complainant is entitled to get replacement of Isolator and the actual loss suffered for failure of cultivation being not categorically proved the complainant is entitled to get compensation of Rs.10000/- towards loss for failure of cultivation.
Hence,
ORDERED
that the complaint Case No.63/2016 be and the same is hereby allowed in part on contest without any order as to cost.
The complainant is entitled to get the replacement of Isolator and compensation of Rs.10000/- for loss of cultivation.
The OP is directed to replace the Isolator and pay compensation of Rs.10000/- for loss of cultivation to the complainant within 45days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the OP is to pay Rs.50/- per day’s delay and the amount so accumulated shall be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account.
Let a plain copy of this order be made available and be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties on contest in person, Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand under proper acknowledgment / be sent forthwith under ordinary post to the concerned parties as per rules, for information and necessary action.
