West Bengal

Dakshin Dinajpur

CC/84/2018

Sri Babla Natta, S/O- Mangal Natta - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Station Manager Cum Assistant Engineer, Gangarampur Customer Care Centre, W.B.S.E.D.C.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Kanai Dutta

23 Feb 2022

ORDER

The instant case has been initiated by the complainant U/S – 12 of C.P. Act,1986 against the Opposite Party claiming  for new electric connection, compensation Rs. 50,000/- + Litigation cost Rs. 20,000/- and Rs.10,000/- for illegal harassment.

     The fact of the case, in brief, is that the Complainant has some landed property and he applied for a new connection of electricity before the Opposite Party for running a submersible pump for irrigation and cultivation of the said landed property. On the basis of the application, the Complainant received electric connection of submersible pump vide service connection no. 25687/STW in respect of consumer ID no.M384178 and a meter no.LX-604520. Subsequently, one day it was found that the meter no.LX-604520 was not functioning and burnt. So, the Complainant applied for getting a new meter in respect of consumer ID no.M384178 and he also paid the quotation money of Rs.9401/- dated 31.12 2016 in respect of memo no.4001839190/QUOREP/02 dated 30.12.2016. Thereafter, the Complainant duly informed to the Opposite Party in respect of this matter o 09.02.2018 in writing but there is no fruitful result till today. But the Opposite Party consecutively sent the illegal & manipulated bills to the Complainant in which the absurdity is clearly found by the Opposite Party and the Opposite Party intentionally disconnected the said connection as a result the Complainant suffer a lot. There is deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party. Having no alternative, the Complainant has filed the instant case for relief as prayed in the plaint.

              Notice was duly served upon the opposite Party and after receiving the notice, the Opposite Party appeared before this commission and filed his written version.

By filing written version, the opposite Party has denied the allegation that there is deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party has submitted that after payment of quotation money vide application no.4001839190, a new meter LF 509230 had been installed in his agricultural premises by replacing the old burnt meter vide meter no. LX 604520 and later it has been physically verified by the technical team of the Opposite Party. So, the absurdity claimed by the Complainant is completely baseless as well as a question out the authenticity and credibility of the Complainant and make false allegations which has to be seriously handled for this type of reckless attitude and further the matter need to be investigated and action to be taken against him.  There is no deficiency on the part of the Opposite Parties so, the instant case is liable to be dismissed.  

To prove his case, the complainant has filed original

(i) The photo copy of letter dated 05.08.2011, 24.07.2014, 18.12.2017 and 09.02.2018.

(ii) The photo copy of bill receipt no.130900306246 dated 22.01.2014. 

(iii)  The original Quotation letter dated 30.12.2016 vide memo no.4001839190/QUOREP/02.  

(iii)   The original quotation money receipt of Rs.9401/- dated 31.12.2016.    

             On the other hand, the Opposite Party has failed to file any document in support of has 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 Party?

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

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

 

                                                          DECISION  WITH  REASONS

 

          We have heard arguments by Ld. Advocate for the Complainant and Ld. Advocates for the Opposite Party at length. We have also gone through the written examination – in – chief and written arguments filed by both the parties as well as the documents produced by the Complainant..          

          At the time of argument, Ld. Advocate for the Complainant narrated the facts of the case as mentioned in the complaint and submitted that the contention of the Opposite Party that after receiving quotation money he installed a new meter in place of the burnt meter, is totally false. The Opposite Party also failed to file the verification report inspected by his technical team before this Commission. The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant also denied the allegation of the Opposite Party that he removed the new installed meter and claim again for a new meter. There is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party so, the petition should be allowed.  

        In support of his contention Ld. Advocate for the Complainant cited observation held in Samson Processing Industries Vs West Bengal State Electricity  of Calcutta High Court and Suresh Jindal Vs Bses Rajdhani Power Limited of Supreme Court of India. 

       On the other hand, Ld. Advocate for the Opposite Parties also discussed his defense case and submitted that after receiving the quotation money a new meter was installed in the premises of the Complainant in place of the burnt meter but the real meter has been suppressed by the Complainant. There is no deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party. Hence, the case is liable to be dismissed.

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

Point No. 1

 

          On perusal of materials on record, it appears that the Complainant, in terms of quotation has paid a sum of Rs.9401/- dated 31.12.2016 which is also admitted by the Opposite Party for installation of a new meter in place of burnt meter. By this way the Complainant has became consumer to the Opposite Party under section (2) of the C.P. Act.,1986 .               

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

 

Point Nos. 2 & 3

 

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

           It is an admitted fact that the Complainant deposited quotation money of Rs.9401/- on 31.12.2016 against the quotation memo no.4001839190/QUOREP/02 dated 30.12.2016 for installation of a new meter inplace of a burnt meter. The quotation report and the money receipt filed by the Complainant, supported the said fact.

          Now, it is the allegation of the Complainant that in spite of payment of the quotation money and after several request the Opposite Party did not install a new meter whereas it is the contention of the Opposite Party that after receiving of the quotation money a new meter being no.LF509230 was installed in place of the burnt meter being no.LX604520 in the agriculture premises of the Complainant and the same was verified by the technical team of the Opposite Party. It has been further stated that the Complainant has suppressed the said meter. 

          Here, the deposit of quotation money has been proved by producing money receipt by the Complainant but the Opposite Party has been failed to produce a single document in support of his contention that a new meter was installed in place of the burnt meter. It is the contention of Ld. Advocate for the Opposite Party that the installation of the said new meter was verified by the technical team of the Opposite Party but the verification report of the technical team has not been produced before this Commission. Thus, the submission of Ld. Advocate for the Opposite Party is not believable because a man can tell a lie but not the document. 

           In the above mentioned discussions, we opine that it is mandatory on the part of the Opposite Party to install a new meter in place of burnt meter where the quotation money has already been deposited.

            In view of the above mentioned discussions, it is clear that the Complainant is a bona-fide consumer to the Opposite Party and there is negligent and deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.

Accordingly, point no.2 and 3 are decided in favour of the Complainant.

Hence, it is

                                                                                   O R D E R E D

         

          That the Consumer Case No. 84 of 2018 is allowed on contest in part but with cost. 

           The Opposite Party is directed to install a new meter in place of the burnt meter in the agriculture premises of the Complainant within 30 (Thirty) days from the date of passing of this order.

          The Opposite Party is further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation cost by issuing account payee cheque infavour of the Complainant failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute the order according to law.

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