FINAL ORDER
Sri Rituraj Dey, Member
The present case has been filed by the complainant praying for an order directing the OPs to effect electric connection to the complainant’s dwelling house, the payment of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant.
The complainant’s case, in a nutshell, is that the complainant applied to the OP/OPs for new electric connection. Having received the application from the complainant OP No.1 arranged an enquiry regarding the said electric connection to the complainant’s house and having been satisfied after the said enquiry the OP No.1 issued a quotation for new electric connection to the complainant. According to the quotation the complainant paid Rs. 547/- as security deposit and Rs. 400/- as service connection charge to the OP No.1 on 12/07/2014 and got two money receipts in respect of the said deposits from the OP No.1. According to the complainant, the complainant’s dwelling house exists in plot No. 1092 and a baram path already exists on eastern side of the said dwelling house and no question of way leave problem/dispute arises for electrification to the complainant’s dwelling house. The technicians/workers of OP No.1 came to the locality on 04/08/2014 and passed the time unnecessarily and without any cause, they orally denied to effect the electric connection to the complainant’s house. The complainant did not receive the electric connection in spite of his payment/deposit and lack of any obstruction. Hence, the case has been filed by the complainant.
The OP No.1 has appeared in the present case by filing W/V as well as W/N/A wherein the OP No.1 has stated that the petitioner/ complainant had deposited the quotation money including service connection charge and security deposit for getting new electric connection. According to the OP No.1 the matter related to new electric connection was submitted to the Project Manager, Purba Medinipur, RE Project, Tamluk for effecting. The assigned contractor of R.E project attended to the complainant’s house to effect the new electric service connection. The said contractor was not able to provide the electric connection due to some reasons. The contractor stated that a new electric pole was required for effecting the said electric connection as well as Kishori Mohan Manna and neighbours of Machinan mouza opposed physically to draw any electric line over the plot no.1092. To avoid law and order violation in the said locality, the appointed contractor left the spot without effecting the new service connection. The another contractor engaged by S.S. Gopalnagar attended the complainant’s house premises to effect the said electric service connection but due to strong opposition raised by Kishori Mohan Manna and others, the said contractor failed to do the Job. The engaged contractor namely M/S ACAM Construction submitted a statement for non-effecting of electric service connection due to strong opposition by Kishori Mohan Manna and others. According to OP No.1 the said statement was communicated to the complainant and requested her to submit a clear way leave or any alternative route to effect the new electric connection but no answer has been received from the complainant.
The OP No.2 has not appeared in the case in spite of receiving the notice sent by DCDRF, Purba Medinipur. The OP No.2 has not filed W/V and W/N/A. The instant case has been heard exparte against OP No.2.
None of the parties has adduced any evidence, but they have relied upon the averments mentioned in their respective pleadings which are supported by affidavit and the documents submitted by them before this Forum. But both the parties have submitted the respective W/N/A except OP No.2.
Points for consideration
- Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the OP/OPs?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any compensation or relief?
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, the documents including the W/N/A submitted by them.
Decisions with reason
Point no. 1 and 2
Having perused the facts as well as the documents and heard the arguments made by the complainant and OP No.1, it appears that the OP/OPs issued a quotation on 03.07.2014 to the complainant and the complainant deposited the total quotation amount including security deposit of amount of Rs.547/-and service connection charge of amount of Rs.400/- on 12.07.2014 to the OP No.1. As the OP No.1 has already received the total amount specified for new electric connection from the complainant, then it is the duty and responsibility of OP No.1 to supply the said connection to the complainant’s house in time. As a superior to the OP No.1, it is the duty of OP No.2 to scrutinize the matter. When the OP No.1 came to know from the said contractor about the physical obstruction raised by a particular person/persons at the time of effecting the electric connection to the complainant’s house, then it was the duty of the OP No.1 to ask for help of police personnel from the local police station. The OP No.1 did not inform the police and did not take any initiative to co-operate the complainant to get the electric service connection without any third party obstruction, for which she had already deposited required amount as mentioned in the quotation. The OP No.1 only sent a letter dtd. 26.08.2014 to the complainant mentioning the information as informed by the enlisted contractor of WBSEDCL to the OP No.1 on 22.08.2014 but has not taken proper step to support the said enlisted contractor to be enabled to effect the said electric connection to the complainant’s house. Here we find deficiency in service on the part of the OP/OPs.
From the hand sketch map submitted by the complainant including the position of complainant’s house, the existing electric pole; the proposed place for new electric pole, electric line from existing pole to new pole and the Govt. road in front of the complainant’s premises, it appears that no dispute and problem should be raised in respect of way leave.
As no dispute and problem have been found in way leave in regard to effect the said electric connection to the complainant’s house by the OP’s enlisted contractor and as the complainant has already deposited the entire quotation money including service connection charge and the security deposit as mentioned previously, so, the complainant is entitled to get the said new electric service connection to her dwelling house and the litigation cost of Rs.1000/- from the OP/OPs.
The above two points, are, thus disposed with the above observation and findings.
Hence, it is,
that the instant case be and the same is allowed against OP No.1 on contest and OP No.2 on ex-partey. OP No.1 and OP No.2 are directed to provide the said electric service connection to the complainant’s house with local police help and protection, if necessary, and to pay Rs.1000/- as litigation cost jointly and/or severally to the complainant within 40 days from the date of issuance of this order, failing which the OP/OPs will be liable to pay a fine of Rs.100/- per day chargable from the date of issuance of this order till the date of compliance of the order in toto. The complainant is at liberty to put the order in execution after expiry of 40 days from the date of issuance of this order as per law.
