DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.
Complaint case No. 34/2009 Date of disposal: 29/07/2009
BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT : Mr. P. K. Sarkar.
MEMBER : Mr. S. Pal.
MEMBER : Smt. J. Sarkar. For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Mr. A. K. Dutta.
For the Defendant/O.P.S. : Mrs. K. Chatterjee.
(1) Sri Bimal Kumar Jana, S/o-Late Kalipada Jana, Vill-Jamira, P.O.-Dewanchalk, P.S.-Ghatal, Dist Paschim Medinipur………….Complaint.
Vs.
1) The Chairman, West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd., Bidyut Bhaban, Salt Lake City, D.J. Block, Sector-II, Kolkata-700091.
2) The Station Manager, Birsingha Group Electric Supply, West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd., P.O.-Birsingha & P.S-Ghatal, Dist-Paschim Medinipur…………………..Ops.
The facts of the case, in brief, is as follows :-
The complainant filed an application to the Op. no. 2 for faking electric connection to his house at village Jamira within P.S.-Ghatal, Dist-Paschim Medinipur and subsequently deposited Rs.6,407/-on 02/08/07 for the purpose as per quotation issued by the Op. no.2. The Op. no.2 received the quotation money assigning the consumer no.BS/D/8507 to the complainant. Thereafter the complainant also entered into an agreement with the Op. no.2 on 14/01/08 and submitted test report of the wiring of his house. In spite of observing all the formalities the Op. no.2 failed to effect electric connection to the house of the complainant. As the complainant had been insisting for giving electric connection to his house for the illness of his wife, one of the staff of the office of the Op. no.2 effected eclectic connection to the house of the complainant directly from the main line in the month of December, 2008 with intimation that the complainant was required to pay the average bills to be issued by the Op. no.2 till the meter was installed. But on 14/09/09 the Op. no.2 and his men raided the house of the complainant and disconnected the electric line on the allegation of theft of electricity and lodged an F.I.R. against the complainant at Ghatal P.S. under I.E. Act and issued a provisional bill for Rs.19,820/- for the
Contd………….P/2
- ( 2 ) -
alleged theft of electricity. The complainant paid the bill in order to get bail in the criminal case started against him. According to the complainant, the Ops were not only deficient in service for not effecting the connection to his house in spite of observation of all for formalities by him but also guilty for filing criminal case against him on false allegation as well as for realizing Rs.19,820/- by issuing provisional bill for the alleged theft of electricity. As such the complainant filed this case praying for issuance of direction upon the Ops to effect electric connection to his house immediately; for cancellation of the provisional bill issued by them, and to pay compensation and the cost of litigation.
The Op. no.2 contested the case by filing their written objection contending interalia that for non-submission of the test report of the wiring of his house by the complainant till 13/09/2009 they could not effect eclectic connection to his house and after submission of test report, the meter was duly issued in favour of the complainant; and that the pole material was not supplied by the complainant till 20/10/2008 and the Op. no.2 informed the matter to the complainant but the complainant did not turn up till 13/05/09. The Op. no.2 further contended that on 14/02/04 he along with his staff had been to the house of the complainant and found the complainant enjoying electricity from L.T. Mains and as such he lodged an F.I.R. U/S 135/1(a) of Electricity (amendment) Act, 2007 at Ghatal P.S. – and the Ghatal P.S. case no. 30/2009 was started against the complainant and as per circular of W.B.S.E.D.C.L. he issued provisional bill for Rs.19,820/- for such theft of electricity. The Op. no.2 further contended that on 18/05/09 his staff went to install meter at the house of the complainant but due to objection raised by the complainant the meter could not be installed. The Op. no.2 denied that any of his staff effected electric connection to the house of the complainant by drawing the line directly from the main line in the month of December,2008. Accordingly the Op no. 2 sought for dismissal of the complaint filed by the complainant
The points for decisions are :
1) Whether the complainant is a consumer within the meaning of the section 2 (i) (d) (ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986 ?
2) Whether the Ops. are deficient in service within the meaning of section 2 (1)(g) read with section 2(1)(0) of the C. P. Act, 1986 ?
3) Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs as sought for ?
Decisions with reasons :
Point No. 1.
Admittedly the complainant paid the money as per quotation issued by the Op. no.2 for effecting electric connection to his house In fact, the Op. no.2 issued the receipt for
Contd………….P/3
- ( 3 ) -
depositing quotation money assigning the consumer number to the complainant and subsequently the complainant entered into an agreement with the Op. no.2 on 14/01/2008 for electric connection to his house as required under I.E. Act. So there is no doubt that the complainant became a consumer of the Ops as defined u/s 2(1)d(ii) of C. P. Act read with 2(1)(g) and 2(1) (o) of C. P. Act, 1986.
Point Nos. 2 & 3.
Admittedly the complainant deposited the money as per quotation issued by the Op on 02/08/03 for taking electric connection to his residence and the Op assigned a consumer number. on the receipt for such deposit and subsequently an agreement for such electric connection was entered between the parties on 14/01/08. The complainant also asserted that he submitted test report of the wiring of his house prior to execution of such agreement but no electric connection was effected by the Op no. 2 in spite of his repeated requests, for non-availability of meter. The Op contended that they could not effect electric connection to the house of the complainant as he did not submit the test report. They failed to produce any document to show that they asked the complainant to submit the test report. It is hardly believable that the complainant did not submit the test report although he observed all other formalities for taking electric connection to his house by January,2008, particularly when the documents submitted by the complainant disclosed that there was urgent need for electric connection to his house for the illness of his wife. There was no justification for the Op no. 2 for not effecting electric connection to the house of the complainant in spite of observation of all formalities by the later within the month of January,2008. So the Op must be held to be deficient in service for non effecting electric connection to the house of the complainant and is liable to remedy the harm caused to the complainant. The complainant asserted that one of the staff of the office of the Op no. 2 effected electric connection to his house in the month of December, 2008 by drawing the time from the main line for non-availability of the meter, since the complainant had been insisting for such connection in view of illness of his wife and the staff concerned assured him that he was required to pay average bill for such connection till the meter was installed; that subsequently the Op and his men raided the house of the complainant on 13/02/09 and seized the materials for hooking electricity from the mainline and lodged FIR for such hooking against the complainant u/s-135 of I. E. Act and issued provisional bill for Rs.19,820/- for consumption of electricity by hooking; and that the complainant paid the bill for Rs.19,820/- to secure bail in the criminal case started against him. Through the Op no. 2 denied that his staff effected the electric connection to the house of the complainant by way of hooking for non-availability of meter, under the given circumstances, such possibility can not be brushed aside. The complainant was
Contd………….P/4
- ( 4 ) -
not excepted to draw the electricity by way of hooking when he observed all formalities to get electric connection to his house lawfully. The Op and his men seemed to have trapped the complainant and implicated him in the criminal case to cover up their deficiency in the matter of giving electric connection to his house in-spite of receipt of all charges for such connection. Be that as it may, the Op no. 2 asserted in their w/o that the complainant did not supply the pole material till 20/10/08 and the matter was informed to the complainant but the complainant did not turn up till 13/05/09. The Op no. 2 filed the letter dt. 10/09/08 wherein the Op. no. 2 directed the complainant to supply pole material to the contractor engaged by them for the purpose. But on careful scrutiny of the letter dt. 10/09/08 it revealed that the LOI was issued to the contractor M/s-Mrigendra Electrical & Electronics vide LOI no. BES/T-12/4874 dt. 23/02/09 implying that the Op-fabricated the memo no.BSE/T-12/1374 with back date 10/09/08 and no such letter was sent to the complainant. Thus the Op no. 2 appeared to have filed false affidavit stating that they directed the complainant to supply the pole materials to their contractor but he did not supply to pole material till 20/10/08 or 13/05/09 in order to dispute the contrary claim of the complainant. In view of the aforesaid facts and reasons we purpose to direct the Op no. 2 to effect electric connection to the house of complainant immediately and to pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant for their gross deficiency in service for not effecting electric connection to the house of the complainant for 1½ / 2 years inspite of observation of all formalities by him within January, 2008. We also propose to direct the Op no. 2 to compound the alleged offence u/s-135 of I. E. Act and to refund Rs.15,000/- out of Rs.19,820/- paid by the complainant as per provisional bill issued by the Op. no. 2. Since the Op. no.2,Mir Abdus Sultan filed false affidavit and fabricated false letter dt.10/09/08 to frustrate the claim of the complainant, the Op. no.1 may realize the amount of compensation payable to the complainant from the salary of the Station Manager Mir Abdus Sultan.
Hence, it is
Ordered that the complaint be allowed on contest. The Op. no.2 is directed to effect electric connection to the house of the complainant within 15 days from the date of communication of this order. The West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd is directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant for their deficiency in service for not effecting electric connection to the house of the complainant for about 2 years since date of deposit of quotation money for the propose, and Rs.2000/ towards the litigation cost, within one month of communication of this order failing which they are liable to pay interest thereon @10% per annum till payment. The Op. no.2 is further directed to refund Rs.15,000/- out of Rs.19,820/- paid by the complainant as per provisional bill issued by the Op. no. 2, within
Contd………….P/5
- ( 5 ) -
the stipulated date.. The Op no. 2 is also directed to compound the alleged offence u/s-135 of I. E. Act started against the complainant at an early date. The Op. no.1 may realize the amount of compensation payable to the complainant from the salary of the Station Manager Mir Abdus Sultan.
Let the copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.
Dic. & Corrected by me
I agree I agree
President Member Member President
District Forum
Paschim Medinipur.