DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS ,
AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 0144
C.C. CASE NO. 40_ OF ___2016
DATE OF FILING : 6.5.2016 DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT: 17.01.2018
Present : President : Ananta Kumar Kapri
Member(s) : Subrata Sarker & Jhunu Prasad
COMPLAINANT : Shri Sarat Chandra Naskar, son of late Beharilal Naskar of Village- Kadarhat, P.O Ramkrishna Pally, P.S Sonarpur, Dist. South 24-Parganas, Pin- 700 150.
-VERSUS -
O.P/O.Ps : 1. The District Engineer, WBSEDCL at Baruipur, Padmapukur More, District- South 24-Parganas, Pin-700 147.
2. The Station Manager, Sonarpur Group Electric Supply, WBSEDCL, at Ghasiara, Sonarpur, South 24-Parganas,Pin-700 152.
3. Shri Haripada Mandal, son of late Kapil Chandra Mandal of Village-Kadarhat, Mondal Para, P.O Ramkrishna Pally, P.S Sonarpur, Dist. South 24-Parganas, Pin-700150.
4. Shri Haran Chandra Mandal, son of late Charu Chandra Mandal of Village-Kadarhat, Mondal para, P.O Ramkrishna Pally, P.S Sonarpur, Dist. South 24-Parganas, Pin-700 150.
5. Shri Bimal Naskar, son of late RATAN Chandra Naskar of Village-Kadarhat, Mondal para, P.O Ramkrishna Pally, P.S Sonarpur, Dist. South 24-Parganas, Pin-700 150.
6. Shri Kalipada Naskar, son of late Keshab Chandra Naskar of Village-Kadarhat, Mondal para, P.O Ramkrishna Pally, P.S Sonarpur, Dist. South 24-Parganas, Pin-700 150.
_____________________________________________________________________
J U D G E M E N T
Sri Ananta Kumar Kapri, President
This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the C.P Act, 1986 by the complainant praying for issuing a direction to the O.Ps i.e the Electricity Authority to give the new electric connection to the house of the complainant and to pay compensation for deficiency in service.
The facts leading to the filing of the instant case may be epitomized as follows :
The complainant deposited the earnest money, service connection charge and security deposit with O.P nos. 1 and 2 on 14.10.2011 for taking a new electric connection to his house. Thereafter, the electric connection was not given to the complainant by the O.P nos. 1 and 2 as O.P nos.3,4 and 5 raised objection to the drawing of electric connection and, therefore, the complainant filed a Writ Petition bearing no.W.P no.23090(W) of 2012 before the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta and the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta in that writ petition directed the O.P-2 to dispose of the objection of O.P nos.3,4,5 and 6 within two weeks after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and by passing a reasoned order. Accordingly , O.P-2 disposed of the objection laying down that no connection could be effected to the house of the complainant as the parties failed to settle the dispute amicably and this order was passed by the O.P-2 on 3.11.2012, vide Memo no. No. SCC/T-16/1249 (VI) . The complainant was present in the proceedings conducted by the O.P-2 and it is so admitted by the complainant in his complaint vide para 16 of the complaint.
Now, the complainant has filed the instant complaint before this Forum , praying for issuing a direction to the O.P nos. 1 and 2 so that the new electric connection is given to his house as early as possible and for payment of compensation amounting to Rs.4 lacs as well as litigation cost. Hence, this case.
The O.P nos.4 to 6 appeared and prayed for time for filing written version but no written version has been filed by them and ,therefore, the case is heard exparte against them.
The O.P-3 has expired during pendency of this case and , therefore, the case is dropped against him.
The O.P nos. 1 and 2 have filed a written statement ,wherein it is contended inter alia that the case is not maintainable and that the same is barred by limitation. According to them, the petitioner is bound to make arrangement for free way leave in accordance with the provisions of Clause 3.2.1 (WBERC Regulation n.57). But the complainant failed to make arrangement of free way leave and, therefore, they could not give the new electric connection in the house of the complainant. They further averred that it is the fault on the part of the complainant and there is no deficiency in service on their part. Therefore, complaint should be dismissed in limini with cost.
Upon the averments of both sides the following issues are formulated for effective adjudication of the case.
ISSUES
- Is the case maintainable in Law?
- Is the case barred by limitation ?
- Is the complainant entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point nos. 1 and 2 :
A plea has been specifically raised in the written version filed by the O.P nos. 1 and 2 that the case is barred by limitation. It is submitted on their behalf that the O.P-2 summoned the complainant and the O.P nos. 3 to 6 who lodged objection to the taking of new electric connection to the house of the complainant and that, after hearing of them the O.P-2 passed an order not to give electric connection in the house of the complainant . That order was passed on 3.11.2012 and the said order was passed in compliance with the directions passed by the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta in W.P no. 23090(w) of 2012 which was filed by the complainant. So, according to him the instant complaint is not maintainable as it is palpably barred by limitation.
On a perusal of the complaint, it is revealed that the complaint is filed by the complainant on 6.5.2016. It is admitted by the complainant in the complaint that the O.P-2 passed an order directing not to give the electric connection to the house of the complainant and that order was passed by him on 3.11.2012 in presence of the complainant. So, it can easily be held that the complainant had full knowledge of that order which was passed by the O.P-2 and by that order the O.P-2 expressed his reluctance to give new electric connection to the house of the complainant. Regards being had to this aspect , it appears that the cause of action arose on that very day i.e on 3.11.2012 and the period of limitation started to run on and from that date i.e 3.11.2012. The instant complaint is not filed within two years of the date of cause of action and , therefore, it appears that the complaint is palpably barred by limitation.
Hence, these two issues are answered against the complainant.
Issue no.3 :
As the complaint is barred by limitation, complainant is not entitled to get relief as prayed for.
Hence, this issue also goes answered against the complainant .
Hence,
ORDERED
That the complaint case be and the same is dismissed on contest against O.P nos. 1 and 2 without cost and dismissed exparte against O.P-3 to 6 also without cost.
Let a free copy of this order be given to the parties concerned at once.
Dictated and corrected by me
President
We / I agree.
Member Member
The judgment in separate sheet is ready and is delivered in open Forum. As it is ,
ORDERED
That the complaint case be and the same is dismissed on contest against O.P nos. 1 and 2 without cost and dismissed exparte against O.P-3 to 6 also without cost.
Let a free copy of this order be given to the parties concerned at once.
Member Member President
