DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
BIRBHUM (SURI).
C. F. CASE NO.-CC/56/O/2008.
PETITIONER = Vs. = O.Ps
Smt. Swati Chakraborty, Station Manager,
W/o Shri Arobinda Chakraborty, Gr. E/Supply, WBSEDCL,
Vill. Kirnahar Bazar, Purba Palli, PO- Kirnahar, Birbhum.
PO-Kirnahar, Dist. Birbhum,
PS- Nanoor, Pin-731302
Date of Filing of the case – 29/12/2008
Present :- Sibsankar Pal ———- President
:- Smt.Bula Koley………Member.
:- Dr. S.Sikder…………..Member.
For the Petitioner – Sanat Kr. Bhattacharya.
For the O.P. – Biman Kr. Chudhuri – Advocate
Order No. 28 / Date : 17/12/2009
Dr. Soumen Sikder…………Member.
1. This complaint is filed by one Smt. Swati Chakrabaorty, W/o. Sri Arobinda Chakraborty, resident of Kirnahar Bazar, Purba Palli, P.O. Kirnahar, Dist. Birbhum, against the OP. u/s 12 of Consumer Protection act,1986, praying that O.P. may be directed to refund the amount spent for one excess electric Pole installed by the O.P. and other compensation for harassment and mental agony.
2. The averment of the complaint in brief is – the complainant, Swati Chakraborty, wife of Arobindo Chakraboarty, had applied for new service connection to her house situated at Kirnahar Bazar, Purbapalli under Gr. Electric Supply, Kirnahar, Birbhum. On physical Survey and verification of the petition the station manager Group Electric Supply WBSEDCL Kirnahar issued a quotation dated 14.06.08 of Rs. 7391 for the cost of two electric poles and security deposit to ;the petitioner. After oral objection against the two poles recommended for connection between old existing electric pole and the iron angle fixed to the petitioner’s house (60 meter distance) the petitioner deposited the quotation price (Receipt No.OR/TT/07 027582 and 027583 dated 14.06.2008). Two months latter Group Electric Supply, Kirnahar, gave connection. According to the petitioner the Station Manager did not pay any heed to
Contd…2/
-:: 2 ::-
the oral objection for excess pole installation. Being aggrieved with unnecessary expenditure incurred the petitioner comes to the Forum for refund of the excess money spent by her with proper compensation.
3. The OP Station Manager, WBSEDCL Kirnahar has denied the material allegations made in the complaint against him in his written version. It is inter alia stated that the petitioner, Swati Chakraborty has applied for new service connection in her house. The OP Station Manager served a quotation of Rs.7391/- to the petitioner on 14/6/08 after proper physical survey and verification. Being satisfied with this quotation the petitioner deposited the quotational amount for new service connection and this OP gave connection of the electric line to the petitioner’s premises.
The OP also stated that there is 11 KV high tension line beside the cannel. The house of the petitioner is situated in a position of 135 degree angle with the old electric pole situated on the south of the cannel. To avoid accident technically two poles are required for connection. Therefore, the complaint against him should be rejected.
4. In support of the avertment in the complaint the petitioner has filed her affidavit in chief. She has also filed two documents which are-
i) Two receipts of the quotation money bearing no.OR/TT/07/029583 & 029582.
ii) Quotation KHR/T-9A/528 dated 14/6/08 along with list of materials issued by the Station Manager Group Electric Supply Kirnahar marked as Appendix-A. The complainant also filed a hand sketch of the new electric poles installed for connection.
5. The OP Station Manager Group Electric Supply Kirnahar has filed his affidavit and a sketch of the aforesaid poles position in support of his avertment.
On the basis of pleadings of both sides the points arise for determination are-
i) Whether the electric poles have been installed violating electricity rules?
ii) Whether there is any unfair trade practice by the OP?
iii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for?
Decision with reasons
Point -1
It is admitted that the petitioner, Swati Chakraborty applied for new electric connection to her house at Kirnahar. The OP, Station Manager Group Electric Supply Kirnahar made survey and issued a quotation to deposit money for two poles & security deposit. The hand sketch in Contd…3/
-:: 3 ::-
support of the survey report shows that the distance between old electric pole and the house of the petitioner is 191 feet (one hundred and ninety one feet) and the position of this distance is an angle nature. Therefore the OP recommended and installed two poles as per electricity rules.
On the other hand the petitioner stated in evidence in chief supported by affidavit that the distance between the old electric pole and the petitioner’s house is 57 meters, but no where she has mentioned the position of the old electric pole and her house. She claims the distance of two electric poles is followed 60 meters according to Electricity rules. The petitioner has not submitted any documents in support of her such claim.
Considering the documents submitted by both parties the Forum decided to survey the disputed distance and position of the old pole and the petitioner’s house by an Advocate Commissioner by an order no.16 dated 12/11/09. Advocate Commissioner’s report submitted on 27/12/09 was accepted and made part of the record by an order no.17 dated 27/12/09. This report shows that a pole is installed on the base point on 135 degree angle position at a distance of 78 feet 30 inches from the old electric pole and other pole is at a distance of 97 feet 6 inches from the first new pole. It is also seen that the distance between the second pole and iron angle on the wall of house is about 11 feet 6 inches i.e., total distance between the first new pole and house is 109 feet which is beyond the rules as stated by the OP.
The Advocate Commissioner’s report is unchallenged and it is taken as evidence. The documents submitted on disputed distance by both parties are not sufficient. So the moot question is whether the electric pole is required within 100 feet distance as stated by WBSEDCL. In this regard neither the petitioner nor the OP has submitted any document. According to law the burden of proof lies on the petitioner. The petitioner fails to prove it. Thus the first question is disposed of against the petitioner.
Point -2
The question whether the OP exercised unfair trade practice upon the petitioner or not. U/S 2(r) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986, “unfair trade practice means a trade practice which, for the purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of any goods or for the provision of any service, adopts, any unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice including any of the practices,
Contd…4/
-:: 4 ::-
i) ………………………………………………….
ii) Permits the publication of any advertisement where in any news paper or otherwise for the sale or supply at a bargain price of goods or services that are not intended to be offered for sale or supply at the bargain price, or for a period that is, and quantities that are, reasonable, having regard to the nature of the market in which the business is carried on, the nature and size of business, and the nature of the advertisement.”
The petitioner does not satisfy the Forum that the O.P. supplies electric pole for the purpose of promoting the sale of any service, adopts any unfair method or unfair practice.
In the instant case practically the Forum does not find any unfair trade practice on the part of the electricity authority, which has been alleged by the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, is not entitled to get any award of refund the price of extra pole and compensation.
Thus the case fails.
Proper fees have been paid.
Hence it is ordered.
That the case no. CC/56/O/2008 be and the same is hereby dismissed on contest without cost.
Let copies of the order be supplied to both the parties free of cost.
(Dr.S.Sikder — Member) ( Smt. Bula Koley — Member) (Shri S.Pal — President)