The case of the Complainant as culled out from the record is that the Complainant being a resident of Kamakhyaguri, Dist. Alipurduar applied for an electric connection to the OP No.3. The OP No.3 issued one quotation on 11.02.2014 for an amount of Rs.439/- and accordingly, the Complainant deposited the entire amount vide Receipt No.23402 and 23403 dated 20.02.14. The real fact is that even after receiving the quotation amount on 20.02.2014, the OP No.3 did not take care for installation of the service connection to the residence of the Complainant. After several persuasion, the OP no.3 finally gave the new electric connection on 02.11.2014 and installed an energy meter bearing No. B/2568823 having service connection No.ID 400854502. Surprisingly, after new service connection, two young chaps disconnected the electric line on the day i.e. on 03.11.2014 at about 4.30 PM. In such a situation, the Complainant lodged a complaint with the OP No.3 on 03.11.2014 for re-connection of power supply. After that, the Complainant also visited OP No.3 and other employees at Kamakhyaguri CCC but no positive result came out. Moreover, the OP violated the WBE&C Notification No.46/WBE&C dated 31.05.2010. By the previously mentioned act and conduct of the OP, the Complainant suffered huge mental pain, agony and suffering for which the OP has to compensate the Complainant.
Facing the peculiar situation, the Complainant compelled to file the present case with the following prayer –
- To re-connect the power supply of the Complainant immediately.
- Directing the OP to pay compensation @Rs.500/- per day from 06.11.2014 to the date of passing order vide clause No.15©(i).
- Directing the OP to pay Rs.10,000/- for physical and mental harassment.
- Directing the OP to pay Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost.
The OPs entered their appearance through Ld. Agent and contested the case by filing w/v.
The OPs by filing w/v contested the case contending inter-alia that the case is not maintainable either in law as well as in fact. The main contention of the OP is that the Complainant brought the complaint by suppressing the material fact only for illegal gain. The other contention of the OP is that re-connection was obstructed by third party i.e. co-villagers of the Complainant against whom the Complainant took no steps before any court of law. Denying other material allegation, the OP stated that re-connection was obstructed by third party i.e. co-villagers of the Complainant for which the OP did not cause any inconvenience/sufferings and Complainant claimed illegal compensation.
By putting all above contentions, the OP prayed for dismissal of the case with cost.
In the light of the contention of both parties, the following points necessarily came up for consideration.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the Complainant Consumer as per Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?
- Have the O.Ps any deficiency in service as alleged by the Complainant?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief/reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
We have gone through the record very carefully and heard both the Ld. Agents in full. Perused the evidences and w/v of both parties. Perused also the original documents.
Point No.1.
The Complainant had an electric connection since 02.11.2014 having energy meter bearing No. B/568823 and service connection No. ID400854502. Thus, the relation between the parties so established from the record is that the Complainant is the Consumer as per U/s 2 (1) d of C.P. Act 1986.
Point No.2
The Opposite parties No. 2&3 have its office at Alipurduar and the complaint value is far less than the prescribed limit thus, this Forum has teritorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to try this case.
Point No. 3 & 4.
The above two points are taken up together for convenience of discussion.
Evidently and admittedly, the Complainant is the consumer of the OPs i.e. West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. and others.
It is the case of the Complainant that immediately after service connection by the WBSEDCL on 02.11.2014, the same has been disconnected by two young men and the Complainant requested several times for re-connection the power supply that was too un-heeded.
It is the case of the OPs that new electric connection was restored in the premises of the Complainant that was disconnected by some miscreants. Thereafter, the OP tried to reconnect the power supply but restrained from local people and did not able to restore electric connection.
In this case, the Complainant by filing a petition u/s 13 (3) (b) seeking an interim order for re-connection of power supply, the Forum passed an order in favour of the Complainant on 24.12.2014 directing the OP No.3 for restoration of power supply.
The Complainant again filed a petition for attachment of property by not receiving any remedy of the interim order. In this juncture, it appears that to carry out the interim order passed by the Forum on 24.12.2014, the OP No.3 handed over the materials along with copy of order to one Biswajit Das, Proprietor of Dhruba Electricals, and Contractor to restore the line. We find from the letter dated 13.01.15 of Sri Biswajit Das, Station Manager, Kamakhyaguri in connection with the Consumer ID No.400854502 i.e. the service connection number of the present Complainant, that on 13.01.2015 he went to place of occurrence to resume connection of the Complainant but he was obstructed by Pabitra Roy and Sahid Ray. It appears from the copy of FIR dated 14.01.15, OP No.3 before O/C, Kamakhyaguri made allegation as to the fact of obstruction by local people, the electric line of the Complainant could not be restored.
In the written argument also in evidence on affidavit, the OP clearly stated that the OP tried to carry out the order of this Forum but failed due to non-cooperation of local people. During the course of argument, the ld. Agent for the Complainant submitted that the O.P. No. 3 has not made any sincere effort to restore the line and has given much trace upon the report of the contractor and they have avoided their duties.
On perusal the documents made available in the record, we further find that practically resistance was given by two neighbours of the Complainant i.e. (1) Pabitra Roy (2) Sahid Ray and it was also alleged by the Complainant that the said electric line was disconnected by above two persons and not by any staff of the OP No.3 for which it is crystal clear that the dispute cropped up between the Complainant and his neighbours. We further find that this Consumer Forum is to be confined regarding dispute between traders/service providers and consumers. In the present case, the act of alleged miscreants viz. Pabitra Roy and Sahid Ray does not come under the purview of the C.P. Act.
From the above fact and circumstances, it cannot be said that the OP No.3 was sitting idle and did nothing. It is pertinent to mention that the OP No.3 has tried best to restore the electric line of the Complainant at his premises but failed due to non-cooperation/obstruction of neighbours of the Complainant for which the OP No.3 has no deficiency in service.
It is also pertinent point to mention that in this case the main dispute between the Complainant and his neighbours that cannot be resolved by this Forum as and when the said miscreants, Pabitra Roy and Sahid Ray are neither customers nor the service providers or the Opposite Parties in this case. The Forum cannot pass any order against these two miscreants. The Complainant was in knowledge about the two persons who created obstructions for restoring the line by the OP No.3 but he did not take any step against the above two persons.
Accordingly, we constrained to hold that the present dispute does not come within the jurisdiction of this Forum and his remedy is elsewhere i.e. the Competent Civil Court having comprehensive jurisdiction.
In the light of foregoing discussion and materials made available in the record, we are in considered opinion that the Complainant badly failed to prove deficiency in service against the OP No.3, for which we further hold our opinion that the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief or compensation from the OP No.3 as well as O.P. No.1&2.
Thus, the complaint fails.
ORDER
Hence, it is ordered that,
The DF Case No.CF - 34/2014 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the Opposite Parties. No order as to costs.
Let plain copy of this Final Order be made available and be supplied free of cost, to the concerned party/Ld. Advocate by hand/Registered Post with A/D forthwith for information and necessary action, as per Rules.
Dictated and corrected by me.
