: J U D G M E N T :
This is a case under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The facts of the case to put in a nutshell, are as below:-
The complainant, Samir Kumar Saha applied for a new electric connection for domestic purpose on 27.07.12 and deposited Rs. 200/- vide Form No. 3000424896 and Receipt No. 7164375 to the OP, Station Manager, Bethuadahari CCC of W.B.S.E.D.C.L. On 08.10.2012 inspection for new electric connection process was done by the OP. thereafter, the complainant deposited Rs. 555/- as security deposit and Rs. 15/- as fixed / damaged charge. The complainant sent a letter by speed post on 30.04.14 for processing new electric connection. Hence, the case. The complainant has prayed for new electric connection, compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- and costs.
The OP has contested the case by filing written version challenging the complaint of the complainant. The case of the OP may be summarized as below:-
At plot No. 784 there is no house as claimed by the complainant. The complainant suppressed his dues of Rs. 2,099/- and Rs. 47,003/-. Consequently upon the application for a new connection the quotation was issued on 19.10.12 and the said quotation was filed on 18.12.12. The authorized representative of Bethuadahari Consumer Care Centre, W.B.S.E.D.C.L. attended the premises of the complainant on 29.04.13 but it was found that the complainant installed a main switch in an open tin shed when there is no provision for living by the family members. In view of the order of the Ombudsman on 16.06.11 the intentional consumer shall be responsible for payment of outstanding charges. The charges were not paid. Hence, connection was not given. The present complaint is malafide and motivated. The complainant files another case before this Forum being case CC/97/2014. As per Electricity Law no new connection can be given unless the bills that means Rs. 2,099/- and Rs. 47,003/- are left unpaid. The present complaint is not maintainable under the provision of Electricity Act as well as Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The allegations in the plaint are fake, improper and baseless.
POINTS FOR DECISION
- Point No. 1: Is the complainant a consumer?
- Point No. 2: Has the complainant paid unpaid bills of Rs. 2099/- and Rs. 47003/-?
- Point No. 3: Is the OP deficient in service?
- Point No. 4: What relief the complainant is entitled to get?
REASOND DECISIONS
For the purpose of brevity and convenience all the points are taken up together for discussion.
The name of the complainant in the complaint is Samir Kumar Saha. He deposited Rs. 200/- for service connection charges of W.B.S.E.D.C.L. The name does not appear in all money receipts but money receipt No. 4931655 and 4931656 the name of the complainant appears. Hence, we hold that the complainant is the consumer of the OP.
In ‘para – 10’ of the written version of W.B.S.E.D.C.L. has stated that Samir Kumar Saha, s/o late Bhabani Prasad Saha applied for a new electricity connection on 27.07.12 and inspection was made after such deposit. It was detected after inspection that the new place where new connection has been prayed for is situated adjacent to the old two storied building of the complainant’s family. During inspection by the inspector only one tin shed adjacent to the old building is found. It has also been mentioned that Samir Kumar Saha has been living at the old two storied building with their family where the electric line was disconnected due to default of the bill amount of Rs. 2099/- and Rs.47,003/-. Hence, we hold that the complainant’s family did not pay the unpaid bills due to W.B.S.E.D.C.L.
When the unpaid bills had not been paid by the complainant and his family members, the OP could not have been held deficient in service, but according to the electricity laws no new electric connection was given unless old bills are cleared. Thus, we hold that OP is not guilty for deficiency in service.
We have meticulously gone through the interrogatories and replies given by the parties. We have also gone through the report of Station Manager, dtd. 02.05.13 only new service connection along with inspection report dtd. 16.09.14 by the inspection team comprised of Suman Prasad (AE&SM), Amit Saha (SAE) and Utpal Bagchi (CM). In the inspection report dtd. 16.09.14 Utpal Bagchi, Suman Prasad and Amit Saha of W.B.S.E.D.C.L. signed but the consumer refused to sign on the inspection report. This shows the arrogance on the part of the consumer. Moreover, we have gone through the sale deed, dtd. 17.03.2010 and the sketch map of plot No. 784 of Mouza 2 No. Muragachhi, Khatian No. 842/2, 871/RS & LR. The property measures 23 sataks and the property has been classified as Aus. There is no conversion to Aus Land to homestead land. Hence, the claim for the new connection of the complainant falls flat. The complainant’s prayer for compensation for harassment and injury for trust along with costs cannot be entertained. Hence, all the points are disposed of against the complainant. The complainant is not entitled to get any relief in view of the above observation. The OP is directed to return the deposited amount for the new connection.
We have gone through the judgment of special court Krishnagar, holding Samir Saha and Bikash Saha not guilty in case No. 142 / 2004 under Section 135(1)(a) Electricity Act. Both the accused namely, Samir Saha (the complainant) and Bikas Chandra Saha were acquitted on 29.01.15 by the Special Court. In view of the above analysis the complainant is not entertained under Section 43 of the Electricity Act. Hence, all the points go against the complainant.
Hence,
Ordered,
That the case CC/2014/86 be and the same is dismissed on contest. No costs.
The OP, W.B.S.E.D.C.L. shall return the deposited amount for new connection as per receipt.
Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.
