West Bengal

Dakshin Dinajpur

CC/18/2019

Mr. Swapan Mahanta, S/O- Late Debendra Nath Mahanta - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Divisional Manager, W.B.S.E.D. Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Pintu Sarkar

30 Nov 2022

ORDER

            The instant case has been initiated U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 claiming an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- + compensation Rs.15,000/- = Rs.2,15,000/-. 

             The fact of the case in brief, is that the Complainant is a consumer under Opposite Parties vide consumer ID No. Kanj DDT 566455. There is a transformer of WBSEDCL whose wire go through the over head of the Complainant house.  A few months ago of the incident, the Complainant saw the firinf at the transformer . He along with the co-villagers lodged a complaint before the Kumarganj CCC of WBSEDCL to shift the transformer but Kumarganj CCC did not take any step. The Complainant also saw that the connection wire of the transformer is also loose. Due to the loose connection of wire there was sparking when the two wire rubbed. On 22.03.2016 at about 01.30 P.M. it is set fire in the Complainant house due to firing of the transformer wire. The fire scattered in the whole house and damaged the whole house and all things. Due to this fire, the Complainant faced a loss near about 2,00,000/-. After the incident, the Complainant lodged a complaint before the Opposite Parties at various places but the Opposite Parties did not take any step. Thereafter, the Complainant lodged a complaint before the Assistant Director of Consumer Affairs and Fair Business Practices against the Opposite Parties on 10.11.2017. The Opposite Parties appeared at the office of the Assistant Director and a mediation was held on08.01.2018 but the Opposite Parties refused to give any relief. Having no alternative, the Complainant filed the instant case before this Commission for relief as prayed for in the plaint. 

             After receiving notice, the Opposite Party No.1 appeared and filed written version thereafter an amendment was made by the Complainant and Opposite Party No.2 was added as party. A notice was also sent to the Opposite Party No.2. After receiving notice, the Opposite Party No.2 appeared and filed written version.

           By filing written version the Opposite Party No.1 has denied the material allegation mentioned in the plaint. He has further stated that there is no allegation against the Opposite Party No.1. The Complainant has already filed an amendment petition. After the amendment he will file additional written version, if required.

 

              By filing written version, the Opposite Party No.2 denied the material allegation as mentioned in the plaint. The Opposite Party No.2 has stated that he is not the superior of the Opposite Party No.1 and the Opposite PartyNo.1 is the sole authority of this division. The Opposite Party No.1 and the S.M., Kumarganj are hold separate post and their jurisdiction are different. The line is H.T. line and not fall under the jurisdiction of WBSEDCL. It is the subject matter of WBSETCL and belonged to Kumarganj C.C.C. There are separate H.T wings for execution of H.T related works under Balurghat Division and this P.P. is not liable for execution or transfer any line related to H.T line. His jurisdiction belongs to only LT works.There are separate wings for L.T and H.T works. On the above ground the Complainant applied for a new connection through online mode vide application no.4002303443 ID no.402268539 dated 14.01.2019 and paid Rs.5058/- through online mode on 16.01.2019.and the work order vide no.377026 was placed on 25.01.2019. There is no question of negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party so, the case should be dismissed with cost.

 In support of his case, the Complainant has filed some documents which are as follows  -

1) Photo copy of Aadhar card of the Complainant 

2) Photo copy of application filed before AD, CF & FBP

3) photo copy of letter dated 05.12.2017 addressed to S.M.,KMJ CCC

4) Photo copy of letter dated 22.03.2016 addressed to Kumarganj, Block Development

5) Photo copy of letter dated 28.03.2016 to B.D.O, Kumarganj

6) Photo copy of letter to Divisional Manager, Dakshin Dinajpur

7) Photo copy of letter dated 23.12.2016 to Divisional Manager, Balurghat

8) Original copies of burnt house of the Complainant

9) Photo copy of title deed of the Complainant.

            On the other hand, the Opposite Party No.2 has failed to file document in support of his defense.             

  In view of the above mentioned facts, the following points are cropped up for consideration  

   POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION   

 

1.  Whether the Complainant is a consumer to the Opposite Parties ?

2.  Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite

     Parties?

3. Whether the Complainant is entitled to get any relief/reliefs as prayed for?    

 

                                      DICISION WITH REASONS

         We have heard argument by Ld. Advocates for the both sides at length. We have also gone through the evidence on affidavits and written arguments filed by both the parties. We also perused the documents submitted by the complainants. 

          At the time of argument, Ld. Advocate for the Complainant narrated  the facts as mentioned in the plaint  He further submitted that the Complainant is a consumer to the Opposite Party no.2 and due to the negligence and deficiency in service of the Opposite Party no.2, the house of the Complainant burnt and turned in to ash. The case of the Complainant id genuine and he is entitled to get the relief as prayed for.

         On the other hand, Ld. Advocate for the Opposite Party No.2 submitted that the case is barred by limitation because the incident took place on 22.03.2016 and the instant case has been filed on 20.02.2019 which is beyond the limitation period of two years. Ld. Advocate further submitted that the WBSETCL has not been made party so, there is defect of parties in this case. The incident is a mere an accident and it is a fatal accident. There is no negligence or deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party No.2 so, this case is liable to be dismissed.  

 

        Now, let us discuss all the points one by one -

Point No.1

           It appears from the record that the Complainant had a connection vide consumer ID No. Kanj DDT 566455. This fact has not been challenged by the Opposite Party No.2 in his written version. On the contrary, the Opposite Party no.2 has submitted in his written version that the Complainant applied for a new connection through online mode vide application no.4002303443 ID No. 402268539 dated 14.01.2019 and paid service connection charge of Rs.2,000/- and security charge of Rs.5058/- through online mode on 16.01.2019 and an work order vide no.377026 was placed on 25.01.2019. In such circumstances, we have no hesitation to say that the Complainant is a consumer U/S- 2 of Consumer protection Act, 1986. 

         Accordingly, this point is decided in favour of the Complainant.

Point No.2 & 3 

         Both these points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity. 

         It as alleged by the Ld. Advocate for the Opposite Party No.2 that this case is barred by law of limitation because the incident took place on 22.03.2016 and this case has been filed on 20.02.2019 which is beyond the limitation period of two years. On perusal of the record, it appears that my predecessors in office has already decided this point on a contested hearing on 27.11.2019 in favour of the Complainant so, we do not think it wise to discuss again unnecessarily.   

          It is also contended by the Opposite Party no.2 that the line is H.T line and it does not fall under the jurisdiction of WBSEDCL but it is the subject matter of WBSETCL. Here, it reveals from the record that the it did not catch fire by the High Tension line but it caught fire due to the firing of transformer wire and the maintenance and taking care of transformer falls under the WBSEDCL. So, the contention of Ld. Advocate for the Opposite Party No.2 is not acceptable and considerable. 

                Further, it is contended by Ld. Advocate for the Opposite Party No.2 that it is a fatal and mere an accident and there is no role of the Opposite Party No.2. Here, we opine that if the Opposite Party No.2 would take steps in time on the complaint of the villagers, no such incident occurred but it is clear negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No.2 which resulted the burning of the Complainant`s house due to firing of wire of the transformer and damage of house of the Complainant near about Rs.2,00,000/-.

              In view of the above mentioned discussions, it appears that the Complainant is a consumer under the Opposite Party No.2 and there is negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No.2.

            Accordingly, both these points are decided in favour of the Complainant.  

 

      Hence, it is  

                                                           ORDERED

 

          That the  case No. 18 of 2019 is allowed on contest in part but without cost against the Opposite Party No.2 and dismissed against the Opposite Party No.1.  

          The Opposite Party No.2 is directed to Pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/-( Fifty thousand only) for damage the Complainant’s house by issuing an account payee cheque in favour of the complainant within 45 days from the date of passing of this order, in default the Complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per law.

          Let a plain copy of the order be supplied to both parties free of cost.