MIR MOHAMMAD SAFI Vs. S.M., BHATAR GROUP ELECTRIC SUPPLY, WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present complaint has been filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the facts as stated below:

(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.

(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.