The instant case was started on the basis of a petition under Section 12 of the Consumer protection act, 1986 which was registered as Consumer Case No. 39/17 in this Forum.

The fact of the case is that the complainant (Ankit Khetan) is an unemployed person. To become a self employed person he started a proprietorship business in the name and style “Sankar Foods” with financial help from the Bank.

 To run the business the complainant applied to the O.P for getting electric connection. After verification and enquiry the O.P. asked the complainant to deposit amount of Rs. 75103/- and the petitioner deposited the same on 12/07/2015.The complainant applied for bulk  electric connection to his industry. For this the O.P. demanded Rs. 118375/- for service connection charge and Rs. 216535/- for security deposit. The complainant deposited both the amount on 24/08/2015.

But, due to unavoidable circumstances the O.P. did not able to give electric connection in the Industry of the petitioner/ complainant. Thereafter the O.P. No. 1 asked the complainant to change his L.T. connection from bulk connection and for this they demanded Rs. 751053/-. After several request of the petitioner the O.P. reduced their demand of Rs. 334928/- and the petitioner deposited the same. At that time the O.P. assured the petitioner to refund the previous security deposit and service connection charges, after observing all formalities The O.P. gave L & MV electric connection to the Industry of the petitioner.

 Thereafter, the complainant requested the O.P. for refund the previous service connection and security deposit. After several request the O.P. refunded the security deposit amount but they did not refund the service connection charges for bulk connection as bulk connection was not installed to the industry premises of the complainant.

Lastly the complainant sent a letter to the O.P. on 11/04/2016 but the O.P. refused to refund any amount for service connection for bulk connection. This is why the complainant has come to this Forum for redressal his grievances.

The petition has been contested by the O.P.s by filling the W.V. denying all the material allegations as leveled against the O.P.s contending inter alia that case is barred for defect for non- joinder of necessity parties and the case is also barred by estoppels, waiver, acquiescence and barred by limitation. It has been stated in W.V. that the cost of refunding service connection charge amounting to Rs. 118375/- could not be refunded to the complainant as per clause No. 7.12 of the notification no. 53 /WBERC dated 2/4/2013 of the Hon’ble WBERC as because the actual cost incurred by WBSEDCL due to the portion of work already executed as part of the process of effecting the said proposed service connection was Rs. 283075/- which is more than the amount of service connection charges of Rs. 118375/- deposited by the petitioner/complainant.

During trial the complainant was examined himself as PW1 and he was cross examined and filed some documents. On the other hand of behalf of the O.P. one Dibakar Patra was examined as OPW1. But he was not cross examined. The Learned lawyer of the complainant was not found present hence the evidence of OPW1 remains unchallenged and the complainant did not cross examined him.

Now the point for determination as to whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for or not.

                               DECISION WITH REASONS

There is no dispute that the complainant Ankit Khetan applied for bulk connection for his Industries and he deposited the amount as demanded. It is not also dispute that the complainant deposited Rs. 118375/- for bulk connection. But the dispute arose due to the objection of local people and the bulk connection was not given to the Industries as such the petitioner changed to LT connection. Now the main problem is that the O.P. has refunded the security deposit of Rs. 216535/- for bulk connection. But the dispute crops up due to non refund of service connection to the tune of Rs. 118375/-. At the time of argument the learned lawyer of the O.P. argued that as per regulation of 7.1 the complainant is not entitled to get  refund of service connection charges of Rs. 118735/-. It is to be mentioned that the complainant also deposited the service connection charge for LT connection as and when the bulk connection was not affected to the Industry. Now the main point comes for consideration whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of the service connection charge of Rs. 118375/-.The learned lawyer of the O.P.s referred the Rule 7.1 of WEST BENGAL ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION. But in the instant case the complainant did not decline to take supply or withdraw his application. Due to local problems and protest of the local people that the bulk connection was not given as such it was not caused due to default of the complainant. As per rule 7.1It is found that when the applicant declined to take supply the deposited amount shall be refunded after deducting there from actual cost incurred including 15% supervision charge plus either 10% of the amount of estimates or Rs. 40000/-in case of Lt and Rs. 100000/- in case of HT applicants whichever is less.  But it was a high ST connection so the amount will be deducted of Rs. 100000/- as and when the applicant declined to take supply or withdraw his application. The argument as advanced by the Ld. Lawyer of the O.P. that no amount is refundable but such argument is  not tenable as because the complainant deposited Rs. 118375/-.  But this rule is not applicable for the present case as because the complainant did not decline to take supply or withdraw his application. On 23-11-2015 written by DE and Divisional Manager of Islampur to S.D.O. Islampur that the electrical installation work for effecting of the said connection had been started as per approved drawing which was forced to stop due to public objection. It is also found that the work is in stop condition after erecting few nos. of rail pole only. So the complainant is entitled to get refund of the service connection charges on conditions that the O.P. will submit the actual cost which was under taken by the Electricity Board for affecting the bulk connection. In the W.V. it is found that the actual cost incurred by WBSEDCL due to the portion of work already executed (prior to arising of ROW problem) as part of the process of effecting the said proposed service connection was Rs. 283075/-, which is more than the amount of service connection charge of Rs. 118375/- deposited by the complainant. Whereas from the letter written by DE and Divisional Manager of Islampur dated 23.11.2015 it is found that only a few nos of rail polls were erected. So in the W.V. it has been stated that Rs. 283075/- has already been expended. Actually, what amount was expended that matter is to be inquired by any Senior Officer. As such the SE and RM of WBSEDCL is directed to enquire into the matter that what amount was expended. The R.M. personally enquire to the matter or depute any officer subordinate to him not below the rank of Assistant Engineer and that enquiry is to be done in presence of the complainant within 3 months from this date. After enquiry the report is to be submitted before this Forum. In the report it will be especially mentioned the number of electric polls, laborers, employees etc. If the complainant is not satisfied with the enquiry and the amount assessed by the department than the complainant is as liberty to file a petition before this Forum to that effect. If the enquiry is not concluded by the department within the stipulated period from the date of order than the complainant get the rest amount of Rs. 100000/-. From the rule 7.1 it is found that in the case of LT and HT connection and the deduction will be Rs. 40000/- and 100000/-. Even for the argument shake if he hold that the electric connection was not given in such case the refund will be Rs. 100000/-. So in such case the complainant deposited Rs. 118375/- and the complainant is entitled to get any refund of Rs. 18375/- subject to the enquiry made by the department. If it is found that the amount is less than the security deposit than the O.P. will make payment of the rest amount after deduction of Rs. 18375/- and it should be processed within three months from the date of order.

C.F. Paid is correct

Hence, it is

ORDERED

That the complainant case being No. CC-39-17 be and the same is allowed on contest on the above direction against the OPs but without any cost.

The complainant gets Rs. 18375/- as service connection charges, 30000/- as compensation and Rs. 20000/- as litigation cost. The O.P. /O.P.s is/are directed to pay the amount within one month from the date of order failing which it will carry interest at the rate of 5% per annum from the date of default of payment till recovery.

The O.P.s are directed to pay the amount within one month from the date of order failing which it will carry interest  at the rate of 5% per annum over the amount of compensation of Rs. 30000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 20000/-.

 Let a copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost. Let a copy of order be forward to S.E. & R.M, Raiganj Regional Office, WBSEDCL, at & P.O. - Raiganj, Dist. - Uttar Dinajpur for information and taking necessary action.