Date of filing:-08/11/2019 Date of Order/Judgement:-30/01/2023.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
B A R G A R H.
Consumer Complaint No. 93 of 2019.
Chittaranjan Panda (Advocate) S/o. late Sachidananda Padhan, aged about 56 years, At. Canal Avenue Ward No.9 Near Collector Office, Bargarh, Po/Ps/Dist. Bargarh.
..... Complainant.
V e r s u s
- S.D.O. Electrical Town Bargarh, At/Po/Ps/Dist. Bargarh
- Sectional Officer, Electrical Section, WESCO, Bargarh, At/Po/Dist. Bargarh.
….. Opposite Parties.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant :- :- Self
For the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 :- :- Sri Prasanta Kumar Achary.
-: P R E S E N T :-
Smt. Jigeesha Mishra ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.
Smt. Anju Agarwal ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r (W).
Dt.30/01/2023. -: J U D G E M E N T:-
Presented by Smt. Jigeesha Mishra, President :-
- The case of the Complainant is that the petitioner has filed this case for hanging of a service wire in low height encroaching the house area of petitioner. The house of one panda is situated near the side house of petitioner and the said house owner has taken the electric line i.e. service wire has been fitted from the electric pole to the said house of panda and the said electric wire has been taken by the side house owner encroaching the house area of petitioner and that wire was hanging in so low height that was touching the head of the house member of petitioner. As a result of which the life and property of petitioner house members was in serious danger and it indicates severe negligent on the part of the Opposite parties.
The petitioner has approached in writing to the sectional electrical officer, Bargarh on Dt. 22/06/2016 and on Dt. 05/10/2016 to the S.D.O. Bargarh for removal of the said wire, but no action was taken for removal of the said wire. The petitioner also orally approached several times to different authority of electrical department on different occasion. The petitioner without getting any alternative filed this case. One day when the petitioner and his family member were absent in the house, the Opposite Parties department remove the said wire. When the Complainant return to house at evening saw that there is no wire. The Petitioner immediately intimated this fact to the Commission on the next date about the removal of the said wire by the Opposite party. The Opposite parties department did not remove the said wire since 2016 to till the filing of this case inspite of oral and written approach amounts to deficiency in service.
- The Case of the Opposite parties is that the Opposite Parties filed their version and submitted that the extension of service wire over the land of the Complainant was within the knowledge of the Complainant from long past. Further the Opposite Parties submitted that the Complaint is not maintainable in this Commission. The Opposite Parties took immediate action and removed the service wire. Hence there is no deficiency on the part of the Opposite Parties.
- Perused the document filed by the parties and following issues are framed:-
1. Whether the Complainant is a consumer of the Opposite parties.
2. Whether the Opposite parties are deficient in their service?
3. What relief the Complainant is entitled to get?
Issue No.1.
The Complainant is paying regular bill to the Opposite Party. Accordingly he is a Consumer of the Opposite parties and the case is maintainable under this Commission.
Issue No.2.
The Opposite party submitted that the Opposite party has as soon as removed the service wire and there is no deficiency on the part of the Opposite parties. Perused the documents filed by the parties and it reveals that the Complainant repeatedly request in writing to the Opposite party on Dt. 05/10/2016 and Dt. 22/06/2016. But the Opposite parties remained silent. The Opposite parties have not taken any step for removal of wire. After filing of this case the Commission appointed an advocate named Sri Sukanta Mishra as Advocate Commissioner to Visit the spot on Dt. 15/11/2019 and submitted his report and sketch map on 23/11/2019. Accordingly to the submission report the service wire was within the premises of the Complainant and at six feet height infront of the entrance gate of the house of the Complainant. He also submitted that the wire seems to be very old and possibility of fall down of that wire in case of some extent of heavy wind and rain. The Opposite party has not removed the service wire after repeated requested from the Complainant. After three years the Opposite parties has removed the service wire on 21/11/2019 and taking plea that there is no deficiency on their part. It is the duty of the Electric Department to remove the service wire when the Complainant informed the matter first time. But the Opposite parties remained silent and did not remove the service wire in time. Due to this activity of the Opposite parties the Life and property of the Complainant was in a danger condition. Accordingly the Opposite parties are deficient in their service.
The issue is answered accordingly.
Issue No.3.
For deficiency in service of the Opposite parties the Complainant is entitled to get relief.
The issue is answered accordingly and following order is made:-
O R D E R
The Complaint is allowed on contest against the Opposite Parties. For deficiency in service the Opposite parties is directed to pay Rs. 2,00,000/-(Rupees two lakh)only compensation for harassment and mental agony to the Complainant within one month from the date of this order. Further the Opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand) only for litigation expences to the Complainant. Failing which the entire amount will carry 12% interest P.A. till realization.
Order pronounced in open court on this 30th day of January 2023.
Supply free copies to the parties.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
I agree/-
( Smt. Anju Agrawal) (Jigeesha Mishra)
Dt.30/01/2023 Dt.30/01/2023
M e m b e r (w) P r e s i d e n t
