Consumer Case No.: 58 / 2007.
Date of filing : 21.11.2007.
Date of final order : 23.04.2009.


Present:
A) Sri Saurish Chakraborty President.

B) Smt.Swapna Kar Member.

C) Sri Swaraj Kumar Biswas Member.



Md. Rafijuddin. Complainant.

versus

The Station Manager,
Raiganj Group Electric Supply,
W. B. S. E. D. C. L.,
Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur. Opposite Party.

Judgment

Date: 23.04.2009.

This case arises out of a petition of complaint filed by the Complainant, Md. Rafijuddin on 21.11.2007 Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Raiganj Group Electric Supply, W. B. S. E. D. C. L. for an order against Opposite Party for a direction that the Opposite Party is to install electric connection and also for an award of Rs. 50,000.00 and Rs. 5,000.00 as litigation cost and any other relief or relieves as the Forum deems fit and proper.


The complaint story in brief is that the Complainant deposited security money of Rs. 650.00 along with other incidental charges of Rs. 185.00 + Rs. 75.00 on 30.06.2003 to Opposite Party and completed all formalities as required by the Opposite Party for getting electric connection in his premises. After that, the Complainant sends a letter to the Opposite Party for installation of electric connection in his premises but no action has been taken from the side of the Opposite Party According to him, cause of action arose in the year 2007 and deficiency in service from the side of Opposite Party has been proved. As such, Complainant has also prayed before this Forum for getting the appropriate relief or relieves.

Opposite Party has contested this case by filing a Written Version denying inter alia, all the material allegations, and the form in which the present complaint has been filed, and on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties and on the ground of limitation.

Opposite Party admitted that the Complainant deposited aforesaid amount in their office. But, fact is that “the work will do under the supervision of Raiganj R. E. Project – II under the scheme of W.B.S.E.R.D.C.”. But, “due to theft of the meter II K.V. O. H. line” – work has been stopped. So, Opposite Party is only liable after completion of the total Project Work in all respect and as such the question of immediate electrification at the Complainant’s premises does not arise and it is not possible to effect the connection from this office. So, there are no latches on the part of this office.

In the above circumstances Opposite Party prayed for dismissed the case with cost.

To prove the complaint case Complainant filed two documents as per their list.

Decisions with reasons:

We have carefully gone through the petition of complaint Written Version and other documents filed in this case and after hearing of both sides we have come to the following findings: -
Main question here is that whether Opposite Party has collected money from the Complainant after publication about the detail of nature of the Project Work which will be partly done by the projector for installation of new electric connection of the public or not; and if the Opposite Party collected the money from the Complainant without giving any prior intimation about that matter then on what ground he did not install new electric connection to the premises of the Complainant.

Answer of the first portion of this question is not clear from any where. But it is admitted by the Opposite Parties in its Written Version and the documents being Nos. 018158, 018157 and 018156 filed by the Complainant shows that the Complainant deposited Rs.650.00; 185.00 and 75.00 respectively on 30.06.2003 to the Opposite Party for getting new electric connection and after receiving the said money, office of the Opposite Party allotted a service connection No.29445/DOM in favour of the Complainant. But after that, Opposite Party did not install new electric connection in the premises of the Complainant. Opposite Party has shown the reason behind the non-performance of the work of installation of electric connection, because of the agency entrusted with the duty of providing completion of the Project Work has failed to complete their works.

And the question that the present complaint is barred by limitation can be ignored because for the last time the Complainant issued one letter on 24.09.2009 through an NGO informing that Complainant is still waiting for electric connection to his premises.

In view of the above discussion it is clear to us that the fact is admitted that electric connection could not be provided to the Complainant due to non-completion of the Project Work under taken by the Opposite Party through an agency. There is very uncertainty by which time the Project will be completed. So, it appears that the Opposite Party has never informed the Complainant about the possible inordinate delay in providing electric connection to his premises. So, here we do find the deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party As stated above the Complainant is at liberty to claim the refund of the money, he has deposited, because in the present form the Complainant is not entitled to any relief, he prayed for, even if we do order a relief, it will useless; because the order can hardly be implemented or executed.

The Complainant is not involved only in the matter of electric connection. A huge number of inhabitants are also involved.

So, we pass the following orders

That the complaint in the present form is rejected on contest, but without cost.

The Complainant is at liberty to take the refund of the money i.e. Rs.835.00 (rupees eight hundred thirty five) together with 4% interest per annum from the date of filing till the date of realization.

The Complainant is at liberty to put the award in execution in case of non-compliance of the order within three months from the date of this order by the Opposite Party.

Fees paid are correct.

This case is finally disposed of.

Let true photo copies of this final order be supplied to the parties free of cost.