(1)
Govt. of West Bengal
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION –NADIA
170, DON BOSCO ROAD, AUSTIN MEMORIAL BUILDING
KRISHNAGAR, NADIA, PIN 741101, Telefax (03472) 257788
PRESENT : Shri dAMAN pROSAD BISWAS, PRESIDENT
: SMT MALLIKA SAMADDAR MEMBER
: SHRI NIROD BARAN ROY CHOWDHURY MEMBER
Case No. CC/04/2019
COMPLAINANT :1. Gita Rani Patadar
W/O- Dinesh Chandra Patadar,
Of Vill. Khanpur, Arshihari Purba Para,
P.O. Gobrapota, P.S. Kotwali,
Dist. Nadia, Pin-740013.
V-E-R-S-U-S
OPPOSITE PARTIES / 1.Station Manager,
Krishnagar Road Station CCC,
Of Vill. Krishnagar, P.O. Krishnagar,
P.S. Kotwali, Dist. Nadia, Pin-741101.
Ld. Advocate(s)
For Complainant: Makbul Rahaman
For OP/OPs : Koyel Parvin
Date of filing of the case :09.01.2019
Date of Disposal of the case :29.08.2023
Final Order / Judgment dtd.29.08.2023
Complainant above named filed the complaint against the aforesaid opposite party u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for Electric Connection , compensation amounting to Rs.4,00,000/-, cost of the case and other reliefs.
(2)
She alleged that she had applied for a new electric connection for the purpose of cultivation of her land. Staff of the OP inspected the land. Complainant deposited quotation amount of Rs.8,000/- but OP did not provide electric connection till date. Hence the complainant filed this case.
OP filed W/V and denied the entire allegations. He further stated that complainant is not an applicant for new service connection and complainant never applied for getting new service connection. He is not the consumer. Hence the case is not maintainable.
He further contended that one Dinesh Chandra Patadar had applied for a STW connection before the OP. After inspection quotation was raised in the name of Dinesh Chandra Patadar. Thereafter, quotation amount was deposited. Subsequently, work was entrusted to Amitava Biswas vendor code number 500347 dated 15.05.2018. Work has been initiated from his end on 20.05.2018 including some erection of polls in this regard but work process had been forcibly stopped due to objection for the cultivation of Paddy in that area.
On 19.02.2019 OP further approached for effecting the connection but it was again stopped. A written intimation was given to Dinesh Chandra Tapadar. He prays for dismissal of the case.
Trial
During trial complainant filed affidavit in chief. OP No.1 filed questionnaire and complainant gave answer.
OP NO.1 did not file affidavit in chief.
Documents
Complainant filed the following documents.
- Original copy of Legal Aid letter issued by Ld. Adv. Makbul Rahaman dated 20.03.2018.........(One sheet).......(Annex-1)
- Xerox copy of Quotation dated 31.07.2014..........(One sheet)......(Annex-2)
- Xerox copy of Money Receipt dated 13.07.2014.........(One sheet)........(Aneex-3)
- Xerox copy of application letter dated 05.03.2017 along with Original copy of Postal Receipt .........(One sheet)....(Annex-5)
- Xerox copy of application letter dated 29.01.2018 along with Original copy of Postal Receipt........(One sheet).....(Annex-6)
- Xerox copy of application letter dated 29.01.2018 along with Original copy of Postal Receipt.........(One sheet).......(Annex-7)
- Xerox copy of application letter dated 29.01.2018 along with Original copy of Postal Receipt.........(One sheet).......(Annex-8)
(3)
- Computerised copy of application letter dated 20.01.2017 along with Original copy of Postal Receipt.........(One sheet).......(Annex-9)
- Computerised copy of application letter dated 20.01.2017 along with original copy of Postal Receipt.........(One sheet).......(Annex-10)
10)Original copy of application letter dated 05.01.2017.......(One sheet).....(Annex-11)
11)Original copy of application letter dated 05.01.2017.......(One sheet).....(Annex-12)
12)Original copy of application letter dated 05.01.2017.......(One sheet).....(Annex-13)
OP filed following documents:-
1)Envelop..............(One Number)
2)Original copy of application letter dated 01.03.2019...........(One sheet)
3)Xerox copy of firisti............(One sheet)
- Xerox copy of Legal Aid letter issued by Ld. Adv. Makbul Rahaman dated 20.03.2018.........(One sheet).......(Annex-1)
- Xerox copy of Quotation dated 31.07.2014..........(One sheet)......(Annex-2)
- Xerox copy of Money Receipt dated 13.07.2014.........(One sheet)........(Aneex-3)
- Xerox copy of application letter dated 05.03.2017 along with Xerox copy of Postal Receipt .........(One sheet)....(Annex-5)
- Xerox copy of application letter dated 29.01.2018 along with Xerox copy of Postal Receipt........(One sheet).....(Annex-6)
- Xerox copy of application letter dated 29.01.2018 along with Xerox copy of Postal Receipt.........(One sheet).......(Annex-7)
10)Xerox copy of application letter dated 29.01.2018 along with Xerox copy of Postal Receipt.........(One sheet).......(Annex-8)
11) Xerox copy of application letter dated 20.01.2017 along with Xerox copy of Postal Receipt.........(One sheet).......(Annex-9)
12) Xerox copy of application letter dated 20.01.2017 along with Xerox copy of Postal Receipt.........(One sheet).......(Annex-10)
13) Xerox copy of application letter dated 05.01.2017.....(One sheet).....(Annex-11)
14)Xerox copy of application letter dated 05.01.2017.......(One sheet).....(Annex-12)
(4)
15)Xerox copy of application letter dated 05.01.2017.......(One sheet).....(Annex-13)
Brief Notes of Argument
Complainant filed BNA. OP filed BNA.
Decision with Reasons
Complainant alleged that he is a consumer and OP is a service provider. She further argued that there is a deficiency on the part of OP.
On perusal of Annexure-2 which is a Xerox copy, we find that OP had issued one quotation in favour of Dinesh Chandra Patadar on 11.07.2014 giving one direction to deposit Rs.8,000/- as quotation money.
On perusal of Annexure-3 which is a Xerox copy, we find that Rs.3,295/- and Rs.4,705/- have been deposited on behalf of Dinesh Chandra Patadar.
On perusal of Annexure-5,6,7,8, we find that complainant filed application before the different persons relating to RTI.
On perusal of Annexure-9,10, we find that one Abtalleb Mondal issued those letters but his signature are absent over those two documents.
On perusal of Annexure-11,12,13, we find that complainant wrote those letters to the different officers of the WBSEDCL.
To get the desire relief, complainant has to prove that she is a consumer. Her main grievance in that in spite of taking quotation money OP not yet provided the service connection in favour of the complainant. But on perusal of document, we find that one Dinesh Chandra Patadar had deposited the said money. Complainant described in the petition of complaint that she is the wife of said Dinesh Chandra Patadar. But in the petition of complaint there is no note that said Dinesh Chandra Patadar has expired or not. Moreover, there is no description over the petition of complaint that under what authority complainant filed this case on behalf of said Dinesh Chandra Patadar. If Dinesh Chandra Patadar died then his all the legal heirs should be the party in this case. Interest of Dinesh Chandra Patadar cannot be adjudicated in absence of other legal heirs if it is found that Dinesh Chandra Patadar has expired.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is clear before us that complainant failed to established herself as a consumer before this Commission.
(5)
Accordingly, we find that complainant is not entitled to any relief as per her prayer. In the result present case fails.
Hence,
It is
Ordered
that the present case be and the same is dismissed on contest but without any order as to costs.
Let a copy of this final order be supplied to both the parties as free of costs.
Dictated & corrected by me
............................................
PRESIDENT
(Shri DAMAN PROSAD BISWAS,) ..................... ..........................................
PRESIDENT
(Shri DAMAN PROSAD BISWAS,)
We concur,
........................................ .........................................
MEMBER MEMBER
(NIROD BARAN ROY CHOWDHURY) (MALLIKA SAMADDAR)
