West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/71/2016

Sri Dinabandhu Pradip Ghosh - Complainant(s)

Versus

AE & Station Manager, W.B.S.E.D.C.L. - Opp.Party(s)

Asim Kumar Dutta

17 Aug 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                                                                                                       

Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

Mrs. Debi Sengupta, Member

and

Kapot Kumar Chattopadhyay

 

   

Complaint Case No.71/2016

                                                        

Sri Dinabandhu  Pradip Ghosh, S/o-Late Shyamapada Ghosh,

Vill-Bualia, P.O.-Birsingha, P.S.-Ghatal,  Dist-Paschim Medinipur…..….………Complainant

Versus

The A.E. & Station Manager, Birsingha C.C.C., WBSEDCL.,

P.O.-Birsingha, P.S.-Ghatal, Dist-Paschim Medinipur …Opposite. Party.

 

 For the Complainant: Mr. Ashim Kumar Dutta, Advocate.

 For the O.P.              : Mr.Debiprasad Das Mahapatra, Advocate.     

 

Decided on: -17/08/2016

                               

ORDER

   Mrs. Debi Sengupta, Member - The case of the complainant in a nutshell is that the complainant applied for domestic electric connection in his premises from the office of the O.P.-WBDEDCL, Subsequently the O.P. send quotation on 22/05/2088 and as per quotation the complainant deposited the quotation money of Rs.660/- on 22/05/2008  and the O.P. received the  same. The complainant alleged in his petition of complainant that the O.P. did not arrange the domestic line of the complainant and after laps of the seven (7)   years the O.P.  send another quotation to the complainant on 24/04/2015 and the complainant  again deposited the quotation money  of Rs.447/- on 29/04/2015 in to the Op’s  office. Regarding ownership, the

Contd……………….P/2

 

( 2 )     

complainant contends that as per advise of the O.P. the complainant deposited the ownership paper’s of the premises and after getting the papers the O.P. verified the same from the office of B. L. and B.L.R.O and sent report to the O.P. in due time and the O.P. is confirmed the ownership of the complainant. The complainant states that though receiving the said report, the O.P. intentionally did not connect the electric line with a plea that  one lady is disturbing and giving objection and for this reason the O.P. unable to do their work and advised the complainant to arrange for police help. The complainant alleged that he diposite the way leave of electric line and ownership of the land from existing electric pole to the premises of the complainant and question of objection from local people does not arise and in support of alleged objection the O.P. did not produce any paper. The complainant further states that after receiving the quotation money and verified the ownership from B.L. and B.L.R.O. it is the duty of the O.P. to install electric connection to the complainant’s premises. The complainant contends that such type of act is deficiency of service on the part of the O.P. It is very much necessary the electric energy in human life.

Having no other way the complainant is forced  to file this case before the Ld. Forum with a prayer directing the O.P. to install domestic electric line in the complainant’s premises and the complainant also prays for cost of harassment and compensation.

The O.P. has contested the case by filing written objection. In the written objection the O.P.  states that the complaint case is neither maintainable nor enter trainable in law. The O.P. begs to state that the complainant has no cause to lodge such complainant against the O.P. The  O.P. also states that according to state electricity rules after receiving the quotation money from the consumer the O.P. tried to install electricity from the nearest existing poles at the time of installation one Sri Chittaranjan Ghosh along with his wife opposed the staff of Birsingha C.C.C. to install electric line Chittaranjan Ghosh and his wife claiming themselves the owner of the land over which electric post exists. The O.P. further states that several attempts were made by staff of  Birshinga C.C.C. but due to strong objection of Chittaranjan Ghosh and his  wife they could not install the connection. At last the O.P. asked B.L. and B.L.R.O. to verify the record of the land and the present possession of the said land. Subsequently B.L. and B.L.R.O.  submitted the report and the report shows that the plot No.1392 stands in the name of  Shyama Pada Ghosh the father of the Dinabandhu Ghosh as one of the co-shares. The O.P. admitted the fact by perusing the report dated 20/08/2015 that Dinabahdhu Ghosh is

Contd……………….P/3

( 3 )

entitled for service connection from the nearest pole. The O.P. contends and states that due to strong objection of the wife of Chittaranjan Ghosh the staff of Birshingha C.C.C. failed to give service connection. The O.P. further states that Birshigha C.C.C. has no female staff to object the act of the wife of Chittaranjan Das. So service connection is not possible. O.P. intimated the said matter to the complainant. So  there is no deficiency of service on the part of the O.P.  and Consumer Protection Act has no application in this case  O.P. prays for rejection the case with cost.  

   

Points for decision

 

1. Is the complainant entitled  to the reliefs as prayed for ?
2. Whether there is deficiency of service ?

 

Decision with reason

Issues nos. 1 to 2.

Both the issues are taken up together for discussion as those are interlinked to each other for the purpose of arriving at a correct decision in the dispute.

At the very outset it is to be mentioned here that neither the complainant nor the O.P. adduced any sort of evidence either oral or documentary, but they have relied upon some documents although those were not proved as per law.  Be that as it may we find that the main prayer of the complainant in this case is that to direct the O.P. to install domestic electric line in the premises of the complainant, whose Consumer I.D. No. is 201652935 and for compensation and harassment cost and other reliefs.

Regarding the allegation of the complainant the Ld. Lawyer for the complainant argued that there is deficiency of service on the part of the O.P., as after receiving the quotation money it is the duty of the O.P. to install electric connection to the premises of the complainant. Ld. Lawyer further argued that it is not a fact that one lady of the locality was disturbing  the staff of the CCC and Birsingha CCC advised the complainant to arrange for police help. Ld. Advocate  also argued that by the influence of other  person the O.P. willfully did not install the electric line. So it is a great deficiency of service on the part of the O.P.

Contd……………….P/4

 

(4 )  

The Ld. Advocate for the O.P. argued that there is no deficiency of service against the O.P. Ld. Advocate also argued that after getting the report from B.L. and   B.L.R.O. the staff of Birshingha CCC tried to effect service connection from the nearest poll but due to strong objection they could  not do so Ld. Advocate prayed for police help for installation of  service connection  in the premises of the complainant and that has  been intimated to the complainant. So there is no deficiency of service on the part of O.P.  and prayed for rejection of the suit with cost.

                In view of the facts and circumstances we find that the O.P. submits through his Ld. Lawyer that there is a disturbance of the local people.  But in support of that they did not produce any documents of their plea. So we find there is deficiency of service or negligence of the part of the O.P. Therefore the prayers made by the complainant can be granted in his favour.

                         Hence, it is

                                             Ordered

                                                            that the complaint case and the same is allowed on contest with cost against the O.P.

                                            O.P. is directed to install domestic electric line in the  premises of the complainant and if  required O.P. can call for police posting.

                                           O.P. is also directed to pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation  and Rs.2,000/- for harassment cost to the complainant within 60 days for the date of this order.

                                       Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.                   

                  Dictated and Corrected by me

                             Sd/- D. Sengupta.          Sd/- K.K.Chattopadhyay.        Sd/-B. Pramanik. 

                                    Member                               Member                             President

                                                                                                                       District Forum

                                                                                                                    Paschim Medinipur