Jagannath Bag, Member - (1.) THE present complaint has been filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the facts as stated below: The Complainant had, upon payment of necessary charges and after execution of an agreement, obtained electric service connection in 1999 from OP No. 1, i.e., Station Manager, Bhatar Group Electric Supply for operating a shallow tubewell which was installed in plot No. 2364 of Chandipur Mouza for cultivation of a command area of about 6 bighas of own land and 33 bighas of land of others. Subsequently, the shallow tubewell was converted into submersible pump. No new agreement, however, was made. Allegedly, OP -1 gave service connection to the shallow tubewell of the Complainant as well as to 10 shallow tubewells of others 'most unscientifically and in a most unreasonable manner' from one 63 -KVA transformer in place of an estimated 90 -KVA transformer. As a result, the said submersible pumps did not function satisfactorily. The Complainant and 7 other owners of shallow tubewells moved Writ Petition No. 4604(W) of 2009 and Hon'ble Justice Sanjib Banerjee directed OP No. 1 vide Order dated 14.8.2009 to consider the representation of the writ petitioners dated February 2, 2009 and to pass a reasoned order. In their reasoned order dated 11.2.2010, OP No. 1 observed that the Complainant and other shallow tubewell owners suffered severe low voltage problem at their submersible points and, accordingly, it had been decided that two 25 KVA and two 10 KVA transformers would be installed for which proposal was prepared and sent to higher authority vide Memo No. 1530 dated 1.2.2010. The previous 63 KVA transformer being reportedly stolen on 30/31.10.2008 and no new transformer being installed, no supply of electricity was available, as a result of which, Boro cultivation has been seriously affected. Regular monthly electricity bills are being served upon the Complainant but such bills could not be paid as there was no cooperation from the OP's side. He is ready to pay monthly meter rent of Rs. 25 and fixed/demand minimum charges of Rs. 43.90, but the OP refused to take such meter rent or fixed charges without payment of bills raised by them. Demand of justice dated 12.10.2011 was sent to OP -1 followed by legal notice, but no step was taken by the OPs even after issue of reminder on 22.11.2011.Complainant suffered from irregular supply of energy from the very beginning of installation of the shallow tubewell in 1999 till 30.10.2008 and also suffered for no supply of electricity from 31.10.2008 when the aforesaid 63 KVA transformer was stolen. Complainant has worked out 2 phase sufferings and losses. In the first phase, the problem relates to low voltage and irregular supply of electric energy and in the second phase, particularly after theft of the 63 -KVA transformer on or about 30.10.2008, the problem was due to no supply of electricity. There was negligence on the part of the OPs in installing new transformer in place of the previous 63 KVA transformer. Gross losses for the crop years for the period from 1999 - 2000 to 2011 -12 has been assessed at Rs. 19,20,186. Net loss claimed for reimbursement is Rs. 9,60,093, with interest and compensation for mental agony, for loss of livelihood of the members of the family, frequent repairing of machineries due to voltage fluctuation for about 9 years since installation of the shallow tubewell/submersible pump coupled with fraudulent collection of electricity bills for last 13 years, even when there was no transformer for last 4 years after theft of the 63 KVA transformer and litigation costs, a total claim has been estimated at Rs. 28,00,243.
(2.) OP Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 have filed their W.V., wherein, it has been stated that deficiency in service against WBSEDCL has never been lodged. It has been contended that there are other 25 -30 consumers in the surrounding areas and they cultivate about 800 -1000 bighas of land but they did not raise any objection about low voltage supply of electricity. Further, it has been contended that for complaint about non supply of adequate electricity and/or other allegations Grievance Redressal Officer should have been moved and in case of dissatisfaction with the order of the CGRO, appeal could be filed before the learned Ombudsman and thereafter W.B.E.R.C. but not before the Consumer Fora. The complaint is not maintainable before this Commission or does not have merit. Both the Complainant and the OPs have filed their respective evidence on affidavit, and questionnaire/replies to such questionnaire. learned Advocates appearing for both parties have been heard.
(3.) LEARNED Advocate appearing for the Complainant submitted that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is a social benefit oriented legislation, provisions of which should be constructed in favour of consumers, as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta, as reported in : AIR 1984 Supreme Court 787. Learned Advocate also referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported in : III (2005) CCR 9 (SC) : VI (2005) SLT 1 (SC) : 122 (2005) DLT 83 (SC) : III (2005) CPJ 9 (SC) : AIR 2005 Supreme Court 3180, Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, holding that negligence has three essential components, namely, duty, breach and resulting damage. It has been argued that the OPs failed in their duty to ensure agreed supply of energy in respect of running the shallow tubewell which was installed for the purpose of agriculture, particularly during Boro cultivation in his own land as well as in the lands of others. There was no satisfactory supply of electricity, as a result of which, the shallow tubewell could not be operated to lift underground water during the years from 1992 to 2008, again, when the 63 KVA transformer was stolen on 30.10.2008, no replacement for ensuring operation of the Shallow tubewell was made. Several representations failed on the deaf years of the OPs who were responsible for the loss of crops. Such loss of crops continued year after year. The loss has been assessed by the Complainant at the rate of 50% of Yields of Boro Crops in Bhatar Block as published by the Bureau of Applied Economics and Statistics. Again, the loss of crops was due to non -cultivation of Boro paddy within the command area at the rate of 100% of lands as there is no transformer for the period from 2008 -2009 to 2011 -2012. Compensation as claimed is supported by relevant data as obtained from the materials published by the Government and interest has been claimed following settled principle of law.;