C.D.F. CASE NO. 3 of 2008

BHARATI SADHUKHANA

WIFE OF LATE PANCHUGOPAL SADHUKHAN

VILLAGE & P.O. MOGRA,

DIST.HOOGHLY.

…. PETITIONER

-VS-

THE STATION MANAGER,

MOGRA GROUP ELECTRIC SUPPLY,

W.B.S.E.D.C.L.

MOGRA,

HOOGHLY
…. OPP.PARTY
PRESENT : D.K.BASU ….. PRESIDENT

S.BASU …. MEMBER

REETA ROYCHOWDHURY

MALAKAR … MEMBER


ORDER NO. 28 DATE 29.1.2010


The petitioner Smt.Bharati Sadhukhan has filed the instant case against the Opposite party, Station Manager, Mogra Group Electric Supply, WBSEDCL, P.O. & P.S. Mogra, District Hooghly U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.



CASE OF THE PETITIONER :

The petitioner is the owner of the property which was rented out previously to one Dinabandhu Adhikari against whom the petitioner brought a Title suit before the Civil Judge (Jr.Division), Hooghly and got khas possession of the schedule property . There was a meter connection in the schedule property in the name of Dinabandhu Adhikary and for removal of this meter the petitioner sent a request letter to the oP WBSEDCL on 2.2.07. Then on 1.3.07 the petitioner applied for a new service connection in the scheduled property in her own name and after proper enquiry the oP placed quotation dated 6.6.07 to the petitioner and the latter deposited the quotation amount of Rs.100/- on 9.6.07 on execution of the agreement. But the electric connection was not given in the schedule property of the petitioner inspite of several requests and also observation of all formalities required by Electricity Act and Rules. Finally on 17.8.07 the petitioner sent a lawyer’s letter to the oP but the latter did not pay any heed to that too. Finding no other alternative the petitioner has filed this instant case and has prayed for the following relief.


(i) Directing the oP to effect new service connection in the schedule premises.

(ii) Directing the oP to pay an amount of Rs.5000/- towards compensation.

(iii) Directing the oP to pay litigation cost.

(iv) Any other relief as the forum deem fit and proper.

The oP contested the case by filing written version. The oP submits that there was a service connection in the schedule property in the name of one Dinabandhu Adhikary and an outstanding amount was lying in respect of that meter at the time when the petitioner applied for a new connection on 1.3.07. So the OP was unable to effect new connection in the name of the petitioner in the same scheduled property. Moreover in the interrogatories the oP questioned the petitioner why she did not mention in the original petition that the schedule premises is a shop room and she applied for a commercial connection. Hence, the same is not maintainable in the Ld.Forum on the ground that the application was for commercial purpose and the petition must be rejected . The petitioner in her reply to the interrogatories of oP admitted that she applied for a commercial connection and she let out the schedule premises as a shop room to Dinabandhu Adhikary.

From the above pleading of both parties the following issues are framed .

i) Whether the petitioner is a Consumer under the oP according to Section 2(1)(d) of C.P.Act 1986 ?

ii) Whether the OP suffers from deficiency in service ?

iii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to relief as prayed for ?

DECISION WITH REASONS:

The petitioner is not a consumer under the Opposite party, Station Manager, Mogra Group Electric Supply, WBSEDCL The petitioner herself admitted that she applied for a commercial connection and it is also corroborated by the deposit slip where the application number mentioned as C 29626. According to the definition of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of C.P.Act 1986 a person does not become a consumer when he/she avails any service for any commercial purpose unless the same is not availed by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by way of self employment. Here the petitioner has failed to prove that she wanted to run the shop room exclusively for earning her livelihood and she also did not mention in her petition that she applied for a commercial connection and the schedule premises is a shop room.

Hence the petitioner fails to prove her case and the case is dismissed.

Hence ordered

That the instant C.D.F. case U/s 12 of C.P.Act be and the same is dismissed on contest without any cost.

Let a copy of this order be made over to the parties free of cost.