State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Station Manager, Malancha C C C ... vs Sri Soumen Kundu on 16 October, 2017
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 First Appeal No. A/355/2017 (Arisen out of Order Dated 27/02/2017 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/78/2016 of District Paschim Midnapore) 1. The Station Manager, Malancha C C C ,WBSEDCL, Malancha Lal Bunglow M.W. Road, P.O. - Malancha, P.S. - Kharagpur(Town), Dist. Paschim Medinipur. 2. The Divisional Manager, Kharagpur(O&M) Division, WBSEDCL P.O. - Kharagpur, P.S. - Kharagpur(Town), Dist. Paschim Medinipur. 3. The Regional Manager, WBSEDCL Paschim Medinipur, 2nd Floor, Administrative Building, Burdge Town, P.O. - Medinipur, Dist. Paschim Medinipur. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Sri Soumen Kundu S/o Sunil Kundu, prop. M/s. Kundu Enterprise, Dewanmaro, Ward no.21, Kharagpur Municipality, P.O.- Nimpura, P.S. - Kharagpur(Town), Dist. Paschim Medinipur. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. SAMARESH PRASAD CHOWDHURY PRESIDING MEMBER For the Appellant: Mr. Suvendu Das, Advocate For the Respondent: Abhik Kumar Das & Koyeli Mukhopadhyay, Advocate Dated : 16 Oct 2017 Final Order / Judgement
Date of Filing - 24.03.2017 Date of Hearing - 18.09.2017 The instant appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is at the behest of the Opposite Parties to impeach the Final Order dated 27.02.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Paschim Medinipur (for short, Ld. District Forum) in Consumer Complaint No. 78/2016. By the impugned order, the Ld. District Forum allowed the complaint lodged by the Respondent Sri Soumen Kundu under Section 12 of the Act with the direction upon the appellants/OPs to refund service connection charges of Rs.1,24,250/- along with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint, to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.
The Respondent herein being Complainant lodged the complaint asserting that he made an application for installation of a new electric service connection in his project at Nimpura, P.S.- Kharagpur, Dist- Paschim Medinipur for his proposed business of Bearing Manufacturing in the name and style 'Kundu Enterprise'. On 21.11.2011 the OP No.1 issued a quotation to the complainant claiming Rs.2,63,306/- only, out of which Rs.1,24,250/- only a service connection charges and Rs.1,39,056/- only as security charges. As per quotation, the complainant deposited the entire amount against receipt. After receipt of payment, the staff of OP No.1 came to the proposed spot of business of the complainant and asked the complainant to make a separate house/room for installation of new electric meter and as per request, the complainant completed the construction of the room from his own pocket and borne the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- only. After completion of the meter room, the complainant on 30.12.2013 and 10.01.2014 informed by writing to the OP No.1 and requested them to install the meter. Subsequently, the complainant has cancelled the idea of the project and requested the OP No.1 to refund of Rs.2,63,306/- but on 08.04.2016 the OP No.1 refunded the amount of security charges by issuing a cheque of Rs.1,39,056/- but declined to refund any further amount. Hence, the respondent being complainant approached the Ld. District Forum with prayer for several directions including refund of money of Rs.1,24,250/-, compensation, litigation cost etc. The appellants being opposite parties by filing a written version have stated that they had to bear cost of Rs.2,14,713/- for setting up transformer etc. and they are not under obligation to refund the amount of Rs.1,24,250/- as service connection charges as per Notification No.51/WBERC vide Clause - 7.1.
After assessing the materials on record, the Ld. District Forum by the impugned judgement/final order allowed the complaint with certain directions upon the OPs as indicated above. Challenging the said order, the Opposite Parties have come up in this Commission with the present appeal.
I have scrutinised the materials on record and considered the submission advanced by the Ld. Advocates appearing for the parties.
Undisputedly, the respondent in order to start a business of Bearing Manufacturing in the name and style 'Kundu Enterpirse' at Nimpura, P.S.- Kharagpur, Dist- Paschim Medinipur approached the Station Manager, Malancha CCC/appellant no.1 and made an application on 30.08.2011 for installation of new electric service connection with the requisite fees of Rs.2,000/- only. On the basis of said application, the appellant no.1 issued a quotation on 21.11.2011 demanding a total sum of Rs.2,63,306/- only out of which Rs.1,24,250/- as service connection charges and Rs.1,39,056/- as security charges.
Evidently, due to some reason or other, the proposed manufacturing unit of the respondent was not materialised. The respondent claimed refund of the entire amount of Rs.2,63,306/- and on 08.04.2016 the appellant no.1 handed over a cheque amounting to Rs.1,39,056/- i.e. the amount of security charges but decline to refund the service connection charges of Rs.1,24,250/-.
While passing order for granting service connection charges of Rs.1,24,250/-, the Ld. District Forum has observed that the Notification No.53/WBERC dated 02.04.2013 came into force on the date of publication in official gazette on 02.04.2013 and the quotational amount in question was deposited by the complainant as per quotation dated 21.11.2011 and the complainant deposited the said amount prior to publication of the said notification and therefore, the said notification is not applicable in connection with this case regarding refund of service connection charge of Rs.1,24,250/-.
Seen the relevant notification being No.53/WBERC dated 02.04.2013 which is a pari materia to Notification No. 22/WBERC dated 28.09.2005. In Clause-7 of Notification No.22 it has been provided that after the payment of estimated amount as mentioned for different categories of 'consumers' under Para-4 of this regulation (Recovery of Reasonable Expenditure for providing New Connections) and before the completion work, if the applicant declines to take the supply, the deposited amount shall be refunded after deducting therefrom actual costs incurred including 15% supervision charge + either 10% of the amount of estimates ..... . The said paragraph has also provided that no interest will be paid on the deposits refunded as above.
The evidence on record goes to show that for the purpose of installation of new 63 KVA sub-station for effecting connection for M/s. Kundu Enterprise at location Dewan Maro, Nimpura under Malancha CCC, the WBSEDCL had to bear a cost of Rs.2,14,713/-. The respondent has deposited only Rs.1,24,250/- only as service connection charges.
Mr. Abhik Kumar Das, Ld. Advocate for the respondent has submitted that the regulation being Notification No.22/WBERC dated 28.09.2005 or the Notification No.53/WBERC dated 02.04.2013 have no binding effect and the order passed by the Ld. District Forum was quite justified and as such the impugned order should not be interfered with.
I am not impressed with such submission because the regulation has been framed in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 46 read with Section 181(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the same has acquired assent of the Governor and as such it has a statutory force. A statutory provision is never an evil and it has to be applied in all its rigour and inconvenience in this regard is an irrelevant consideration.
Therefore, when the regulation itself speaks that the deposited amount shall be refunded after deduction therefrom actual cost incurred and the same is not refundable with any interest, I am constrained to hold that the Ld. District Forum has failed to consider the matter from proper perspective. In other words, when the notification no.22/WBERC dated 28.09.2005 or regulation no.53/WBERC dated 02.04.2013 does not authorise the WBSEDCL to refund the amount with interest, as ordered by the Ld. District Forum, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is allowed on contest. However, there will be no order as to costs in this appeal.
The impugned Final Order is hereby set aside.
Consequently, CC/78/2016 stands dismissed.
The Registrar of this Commission is directed to send a copy of this order to the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Paschim Medinipur for information.
[HON'BLE MR. SAMARESH PRASAD CHOWDHURY] PRESIDING MEMBER