14....28.01.2021....
Both parties are present. Today is fixed for delivery of final order. Final order containing 4 pages in saperate sheets is ready. It is sealed,signed and delivered in open forum.
That the complaint case be and the same is hereby allowed on contest against the O.Ps without cost.
The O.Ps are directed to restore electric connection of the complainant in Consumer ID No. 100335858 within a period of 30 days. The O.Ps are liable jointly and severally to comply the final order.
Let a copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.
The final order may also be available in the following website: confonet.nic.in.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
SOUTH 24-PARGANAS
AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 144
C.C.NO._191_ OF 2019
DATE OF FILING DATE OF ADMISSION DATE OF FINAL ORDER
21.11.2019 29.11.2019 28.01.2021
Present : President : Asish Kumar Senapati
Member: : Jagdish Chandra Barman
COMPLAINANT : Basari Halder, S/O Late Satish Halder,
Resident of Enatpur Purbapara, P.O. Ramlochonpur, P.S.- Mandir Bazar, Dist. South 2- Parganas, Pin- 743336.
Versus
O.P/O.Ps : 1. The Regional and Divisional Officer, WBSEDCL, Baruipur, P.O. and P.S. Baruipur, Dist. South 24- Parganas, Pin- 700144.
2. Station Superintendent, Lakshmikantapur Power Station, West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd., P.S. – Mandir Bazar, District – South 24 Parganas, Pin – 743345.
3. Grievance Officer, Vidyut Bhavan, D.J. Block, Sector – II, Bidhannagar, Kolkata, West Bengal, Pin – 700 091.
Ld. Lawyer for the complainant :
Ld. Lawyer for the O.Ps :
_________________________________________________________________________
Sri Asish Kumar Senapati, President
This is a complaint under section 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
The case has been filed by one Basari Halder ( hereinafter referred to as the complainant) filed the case against the Regional and Divisional Officer, WBSEDCL, Baruipur and two others (hereinafter referred to as the O.Ps), praying for a direction to reconnect the electric connection alleging deficiency in service.
The sum and substance of the complaint is as follows:
The complainant is a bonafide consumer of Electricity under the OPs having Consumer ID No. 100335858 and has been paying electric charges as per bills received from the O.Ps from time to time. On 22.09.2019 some unknown persons claimed themselves as staff of W.B.S.E.D.C.L. , Lakshmikantapur Branch entered into the house of the complainant and disconnected the electric meter. Thereafter, the complainant rushed to the Branch Manager on the next date and requested him for reconnection of electric line and the Branch Manager informed him that the meter had been disconnected due to non-payment of electric bill. Then the complainant furnished the payment receipts and the Station Manager informed him that the meter had been disconnected due to change of cable wire and for further re-connection needed Court’s permission. The complainant requested the O.Ps. more than once for reconnection of his electric mete, but of no result. Hence, the complainant has prayed for a direction upon the O.Ps. to reconnect his electric meter vide Meter No. 83664255 and to pay Rs. 2 lac for compensation and mental agony and Rs. 50,000/- for litigation cost.
The case was filed on 21.11.2019 and admitted on 29.11.2019. The O.Ps. their appeared through an Advocate and filed W.V. on 12.02.2020 Contending that the complainant is a consumer under them vide Consumer ID No. 100335858 and he paid Rs. 619 on 06.01.2019 for electric charges. It is also the specific case of the O.Ps. that the complainant lodged a complaint on 28.09.2019 vide docket no. 26334190 alleging disconnection of his electric line and the O.Ps attended the premises of the complainant on 29.09.2019 and found that service connection of the complainant was disconnected by unauthorised person and the O.Ps could not reconnect the electric connection due to strong objection of the neighbours of the complainants. The O.Ps informed the complainant on 30.09.2019 by sending a letter. The O.Ps stated that due to non-availability of free access to the premises of the complainant reconnection of service line could not be possible and the O.Ps prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
On the basis of the above versions, the following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case:
- Is the complainant a consumer in terms of the C.P Act, 1986?
- Have the O.Ps any deficiency in service as alleged?
- Is the complainant entitled to get any order against the O.Ps?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point no.1:-
Both the points are taken together for the sake of brevity and convenience.
The Ld. Advocate for the complainant submits that the complainant is a consumer of the O.Ps.and he paid electricity charges even on 23.11.2020.
In reply, Ld. Advocate of the O.Ps submits that the complainant is a consumer under the O.Ps.
Having gone through the materials on record we find that the complainant is a consumer of Electricity, vide Electric Consumer ID No. 100335858 under the O.Ps. Hence, it is held that the complainant is a consumer.
Point nos. 2 and 3:-
The Ld. Advocate for the complainant submits that the O.Ps have admitted that the Consumer ID No. 100335858 is in the name of the complainant and the complainant lodged a complaint before the O.Ps on 28.09.2019 alleging disconnection of Electricity with a request to restore the service connection but the O.Ps have not yet restored service connection on the plea that some persons raised objection. He submits that the service of electric connection of the complainant was through a cable line through a common passage and the complainant is entitled to get his electric connection restored and the O.Ps have deficiency in service as they have not yet restored the service connection in spite of repeated requests.
Per contra, the Ld. Advocate for the O.Ps submits that the O.Ps visited the premises of the complainant on 29.09.2019 i.e. on the next date of receipt of the complaint from the complainant but the service connection of the complainant could not be restored due to strong objection of the neighbours . He submits that the O.Ps have no deficiency in service.
We have gone through the materials on record and considered the submission of both sides. Admittedly, the complainant is a consumer vide Consumer ID No. 100335858 and the complainant paid electric bill on 23.11.2020. The O.Ps alleged that they could not restore the electricity of the complainant due to objection raised by the neighbours of the complainant.
As the complainant is an old consumer of electricity vide Electric Consumer ID No. 100335858,the O.Ps are duty bound. In our considered opinion, the O.Ps may be directed to restore electric connection of the complainant. The Ld. Advocate for the complainant and the Ld. Advocate for the O.Ps have submitted that the reconnection process cannot be possible without police help. Whether police help will necessary or not for reconnection of electricity cannot be presumed at this stage.
We think that the O.Ps may be directed to restore electricity connection to the premises of the complainant in Consumer ID No. 100335858 within a period of 30 days. We also think that the O.Ps have deficiency in service as they have not restored the electricity of the Complainant within a short period.
In the result, the case succeeds.
Hence,
ORDERED
That the complaint case be and the same is hereby allowed on contest against the O.Ps without cost.
The O.Ps are directed to restore electric connection of the complainant in Consumer ID No. 100335858 within a period of 30 days. The O.Ps are liable jointly and severally to comply the final order.
Let a copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.
The final order may also be available in the following website: confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me
