DATE OF FILING                    :     19.09.2014.

DATE OF S/R                            :      24.09.2014.

DATE OF FINAL ORDER      :     29.07.2015.

M/S. Kamala Mineral Industries,

being represented by partner,

Shri Ashis Kumar Sarker

of village Jotgiri, P.O. Lakhanpur, P.S. Domjur,

District Howrah,

PIN 711114.  ………………………………………………………… COMPLAINANT.

• Versus   -

1.         WBSEDCL Authroity,

represented by Chairman & Managing Director,

having its office at

Bidyut Bhaban, Salt Lake,

Kolkata 700091.

2.         Station Manager,

WBSEDCL Authority,

Jagadishpur, CCC, Jagadishpur,

Howrah 711114. …………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES.

                                                P    R    E     S    E    N     T

             Hon’ble President  :   Shri  B. D.  Nanda,  M.A. ( double ), L.L.M., WBHJS.

                               Hon’ble Member      :      Smt. Jhumki Saha.

                                      Hon’ble Member : Shri A.K. Pathak.      

                                                 F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

1. This is an application U/S 12 of the C.P. Act filed by the petitioner, M/S. Kamala Mineral Industries, represented by its partner,  Shri Ashis Kumar Sarker, praying  for a direction upon the o.ps. to withdraw the Annexure ‘F’ and served a fresh quotation with reasonable quantum of money and not to impose liability to the petitioner / consumer and also directing the o.ps. to provide electric connection by complying formalities and directing to pay damage for a sum of Rs. 14 lacs for withholding the electric connection  to a bonafide consumer.   

2. The further case of the petitioner is that  M/S. Kamala Mineral Industries, being a small scale industries and manufacturer as a dealer in industrial mineral and Cl casting  factory situated at Jotgiri, Lakhanpur, Howrah, P.S. Domjur, and for smooth running of business the petitioner applied for electric connection on 06.02.2013 before the o.p. no. 2, Station Manager, WBSEDCL, Jagadishpur CCC, and on the basis of the same a joint inspection was made in presence of petitioner on 13.4.2013 and the o.p. sent a letter on 22.2.2013 wherein opined that it was not techno economically feasible and the petitioner was directed to render consent for execution of the work on turnkey basis. Again on 08.5.2013 the o.p. no. 2 served a letter on the petitioner with a  list of materials needed for such execution on turnkey basis. The quotation issued in favour of the petitioner dated  8.5.2013 showing expenditure of Rs. 6,40,284/- excluding labour charges and the o.p. asked the petitioner for making payment of Rs. 70,000/- towards charges of contractor including labour charges for installation of cable for rendering and for  completion of lay out towards the distribution of electricity to the petitioner.  The further  case of the petitioner is that total expenditure imposed on the shoulder of the petitioner was abnormal and for a small scale industries it was totally detrimental to the interest of the same and against policy of Government. Supervision charge was shown Rs. 1,32,788/- which is also without basis. The petitioner requested the o.p. to withdraw the said quotation but the o.p. did not comply his request and disposed of representation by an order dated 23.5.2014. The o.p. no. 2 served another quotation amounting to Rs. 1,95,439/- directed the petitioner to deposit the sum within 90 days and in the revised quotation the supervision charges were Rs. 1,96,309/-. It became impossible for the small scale industries to run the business and the o.ps. delayed the matter and thus the damage of the petitioner amounted to Rs. 14 lakhs as the petitioner purchased machinery etc. taking loan from S.B.I. and then filed this case with the above prayer.

3. The o.ps., WBSEDCL Authority, contested the case by failing a written version wherein it has been  denied the allegations made in the complaint petition and submitted that the case is not maintainable in law as well as in fact.  They further submitted that the quotation was sent to the petitioner with necessary supervision  charge of Rs. 1,31,788/- which included cost of  9 nos. 9 meter PCC Pole, 2 numbers of 8 meter PCC Poles and 1%  cess for entire  project and PSD as per the WBERC Regulation. The petitioner was not satisfied with the order and objected before the Court of Ombudsman WBERC and order was passed on 23.5.2014 wherein the Ombudsman ordered to regenerate the quotation by recasting  the estimate. But the petitioner failed to deposit the quotation. The petitioner in one hand alleged that they are unable to pay quotation amount, supervision charge and machinery cost but on the other hand not hesitating to claim of Rs. 14 lakhs towards compensation. The case is not maintainable and be rejected in limini.  

4. Upon pleadings of  parties the following  points arose for determination :

1. Is the case maintainable in its present form ?
2. Whether the petitioner has any cause of action to file the case ?
3. Whether  there is  any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P., WBSEDCL Authority ?

2. Whether the complainant is   entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

5. All the issues  are  taken up together for the sake of convenience and  brevity for discussion and to skip of reiteration.  Keeping in mind the respective cases of the parties and also the submission of the ld. counsel of both sides,  this Forum finds that the petitioner having applied for electricity was served with a quotation and the petitioner appealed before RGRO & DE ( Com), Regional Office, Howrah, and the said office passed a reasoned order on 07.9.2013 with an advance to the effect that the  petitioner if dissatisfied may prefer appeal before the Hon’ble Ombudsman at Salt Lake and after hearing the both parties the Ombudsman passed an order on 23.5.2014 and after that the petitioner filed this case.  

6. The Forum further find that the o.ps. wanted to do the job on turn key basis and the petitioner gave consent to the said work by his letter dated 08.3.2013. As per order of Ombudsman the petitioner was served with a fresh quotation but the petitioner did not respond to the said quotation by depositing the amount needed for such job on turnkey basis and thus this Forum finds  no inaction on the part of the o.ps.

7. Further on scrutiny of the record it is noticed that the petitioner is a small scale industries represented by partner i.e., the industry is being run by the partner, Ashis Kumar Sarker,  and there is not smell from any corner that he runs the industry for self same or for the purpose of earning his livelihood.  Thus the industry being a commercial establishment for the purpose of earning profit cannot be said to be a ‘Consumer’. Under the purview of the definition of ‘Consumer’ as laid down U/S  2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986. Rather the petitioner here remains as a commercial industry and such petitioner availing electricity from the o.ps. i.e., WBSEDCL Authority, electricity supply company for the purpose of commercial use and so the petitioner is excluded from the definition of ‘Consumer’ as defined U/S 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act  and not being a consumer this Consumer Forum cannot entertain a complaint from  a commercial establishment as the petitioner here being  M/S. Kamala Mineral Industries.   

8. In view of above discussion and findings this Forum finds that the petitioner miserably failed to prove the fact that he is a consumer and his dispute is a consumer dispute.

In the result, the claim case fails.

      Hence,

                       O     R     D      E      R      E        D

                 That the C. C. Case No. 520 of 2014 ( HDF 520 of 2014 )  be  dismissed  on contest without   costs  against  the O.Ps.                

      Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.  

  (    B. D.  Nanda   )                                              

  President,  C.D.R.F., Howrah.