F I N A L   O R D E R

The complainant has filed this case U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the prayer directing the O.P. No.1 to refund a sum of Rs.81,395/- along with 10% interest, to pay Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost and to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation.

The case of the complainant in short is that the complainant had deposited total Rs.81,395/- as security deposit and service connection charge for the purpose of getting S.T.W. connection for irrigation purpose to the O.P. No.1 on 07.12.2010. The complainant on several occasions knocking the doors of the O.P. No.1 for electrification of S.T.W. connection as per quotation, but the O.P. No.1 did not pay heed. The complainant had put the matter to the Assistant Director, Consumer Affairs & Fair Business Practices, Uttar Dinajpur for redressal and after receiving the notice from the said office, the O.P. No.1 did not turn up. Finding no alternative the complainant was forced to come before this Forum.

O.P. No.1 has contested the case by filing W.V. denying the allegations of the complainant stating inter alia that the case is not maintainable, that though the complainant was deposited required amount for security deposit and service connection charge but she was unwilling to take service connection, the O.P. is bound to refund the security deposit amount, there is no latches or deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. and this O.P. prayed for dismiss the complaint with cost.

O.P. No.2 did not contest the case neither by filing W.V. nor appearing on the date of hearing of the case. Hence, the case against O.P. No.2 is heard ex-parte.

DECISIONS WITH REASONS

To establish her case, the complainant has submitted memo of evidence supported by affidavit, answer of questionnaires and some photocopies of documents like as money receipts in respect of security deposit and service connection charge, letter dated 01.04.2013 issued by the complainant address to the O.P. No.1, letter issued by the Assistant Director of Consumer Affairs & Fair Business Practices, Uttar Dinajpur dated 01.11.2013 address to the O.P. No.1, quotation dated 17.03.2013 and quotation dated 20.02.2012 issued by O.P. No.1 and receipts in regard to deposit of security deposit and service connection charge dated 29.02.2012.

O.P. No.1 has submitted W.V., questionnaires and oral evidence and one photo copy of bill dated 16.02.2015 in favour of the complainant to prove its case.

We carefully peruse the complaint, memo of evidence, W.V. and photocopies of documents filed by the contesting parties and considered the arguments advanced by the complainant and O.P. No.1.

On perusal of complaint and other documents it reveals that the complainant was applied one S.T.W. electric connection for the purpose of irrigation and deposited Rs.2,250/- for security deposit and Rs.79,145/- for service connection charge vide receipt No.4605 and 4606 respectively dated 27.12.2010 to the O.P. No.1. Thereafter, the complainant was repeatedly knocking the doors of O.P. No.1 with the request to make S.T.W. connection as per quotation and the matter was placed to O.P. No.1 through Assistant Director of Consumer Affairs & Fair Business Practices, Uttar Dinajpur as per complaint lodged by the complainant but the O.Ps. did not pay heed for necessary arrangements in the matter of S.T.W. connection of the complainant.

Subsequently the complainant was applied for fresh S.T.W. connection and as per quotation dated 17.03.2013 issued by O.P. No.1 the complainant had to deposit Rs.3,800/- as service connection charge and Rs.3,222/- as security deposit vide money receipt serial Nos. 5195317 and 5195318 respectively and thereafter the O.Ps. have connected new S.T.W. electric connection to the complainant as per new quotation for irrigation purpose. Thereafter, the complainant vide her letter dated 01.04.2013 approached the O.P. No.1 that as she got new S.T.W. electric connection as per new quotation for the purpose of irrigation. So, please refund the earlier deposited amount totaling of Rs.81,395/- for security deposit and service connection charge for S.T.W. connection but the O.P. did not pay heed in the matter of refund the amount. In the W.V. submitted by the O.P. No.1, where it stated that O.P. had several times requested the complainant to return back the security deposit amount but the O.Ps. have failed to prove their statement by any cogent evidence. Moreover, in the W.V. Para-14, the O.P. No.1 has stated that “there is no deficiency in service and negligent act on part of the O.P. to the effect of the new service connection on the tenanted premises of the complainant”, and on the comments it clearly assumed that the complainant got new S.T.W. connection as per new quotation issued by the O.P. No.1 dated 17.03.2013 and as such there was no S.T.W. connection as per previous quotational amount deposited on 27.12.2010. In the oral evidence the witness Rajdeep Ghosh, by designation as A.E. & S.M. of O.P. No.1 stated in his deposition that “our department are not bound to refund the total service connection charge as given by the complainant”, for such statement being an official of O.P. No.1 it also assumed that there must be a provision to refund the deposited amount in respect of service connection charge. It also appears from the copy of bill of S.T.W. connection, billing date 16.02.2015 in favour of the complainant, submitted by the O.P. No.1, where there is an endorsement by the said Rajdeep Ghosh, A.E. & S.M.  of O.P. No.1, mentioned that “the security deposit and S/C charge which is being claimed by the petitioner issued for this installation for developing infrastructure. Hence, there is no question of refunding the same”.

On careful perusal of W.V., oral evidence and documents submitted by the O.P. No.1 it appears that the O.P. No.1 in its W.V. stated that O.P. No.1 is ready to refund the security deposit”, in the oral evidence stated that “our department are not bound to refund the total service connection charge as given by the complainant” and lastly making an endorsement in the bill dated 16.02.2015 stated that “The security and S/C charge which is being claimed by the petitioner is used for this installation in developing the infrastructure. Hence, there is no question of refunding the same” but the O.P. No.1 is unable to prove that they gave S.T.W. connection to the complainant as per quotation dated 27.12.2010 in which the complainant was deposited Rs.81,395/- for security deposit and service connection charge. If there be the fact, that O.P. No.1 had given S.T.W. connection to the complainant as per old quotation while the O.P. No.1 issued another quotation against fresh application of same S.T.W. connection of the complainant against deposited total amount of Rs.7,022/- only for security deposit and service charge vide money receipt Nos. 5195317 and 9195318 dated 14.05.2013. The complainant has also to prove and strengthen her case submitted another quotation of S.T.W. connection in the name of Rupa Mandi on the same locality where the deposited total amount was Rs.7,151/- only for security deposit and service connection charge vide quotation memo No.4000186803/quot/03, dated 20.03.2013.

From the document issued by O.P. No.1 it is clearly proved that the O.P. No.1 has connected S.T.W. connection for the purpose of irrigation to the complainant against 2nd quotation dated 17.03.2013, where total amount deposited of Rs.7,022/- for security deposit and S/C charge vide memo No.0000293396/quot/03, dated 17.03.2013. It is also proved that the O.P. No.1 did not supply S.T.W. connection as per earlier quotational amount deposited on 27.12.2010 by the complainant. On perusal of all quotational documents, we could not understand why the O.P. No.1 had received Rs.81,395/- as security deposit and S/C charge for S.T.W. connection from the complainant against issued 1st quotation, where amount was deposited on 27.12.2010, not only that, after receiving such huge amount the O.P. was unable to supply S.T.W. connection but, while the complainant was submitted fresh application and deposited only Rs.7,022/- as service connection charge and security deposit for S.T.W. connection then the O.Ps. had approved and supplied S.T.W. connection to the complainant as per fresh application of new quotation.

In view of the discussions hereinbefore it reveals that the complainant has proved her case as a consumer and the instant case it is well proved that the O.Ps. were negligent, deficient in service and also made unfair trade practice. The complainant is entitled to get an award of refund the deposited the quotational amount of Rs.81,395/- with interest, compensation and litigation cost.

Fees paid is correct.

Hence, it is

ORDERED,

That the complaint case being No.CC-27/2014 is allowed on contest against O.P. No.1 and ex-parte against O.P. No.2 without cost.

That the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 are severally or jointly liable to pay the awarded sum. The O.P. No.1 is directed to refund back the quotational amount total of Rs.81,395/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of deposit, to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant within one month from this day failing which such total calculated amount will carry interest @ 10% p.a. from this day till full realization and the complainant will be at liberty to place this award in execution in accordance with law.

Copy of this order be supplied to each parties free of cost.