West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/73/2017

Sushila Malakar - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

04 Sep 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

Pulak Kumar Singha, Member

and

Sagarika Sarkar, Member

   

Complaint Case No.73/2017

 

Sushila Malakar, W/o-Late Pranab Malakar, Circuits House (Kamar Para)  

P.O.-Midnapore, P.S.-Kotwali, Dist-Paschim Medinipur.….………Complainant

Versus

                 Assistant Engineer & Station Manager, Midnapore C.C.C., W.B.S.E.D.C.L.             

                 P.O.-Midnapore,  P.S.-Kotwali, Dist-Paschim Medinipur,.……………….Op.

 

For the Complainant:  Mr. Srabanti Das, Advocate.

For the O.P.             :  Mr. Swapan Kumar Bhattacharya, Advocate.                     

                                                                    Decided on 04/09/2017                             

                               

ORDER

                         Sagarika Sarkar, Member – This instant case is filed u/s-12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 by the complainant Sushila Malakar alleging deficiency in service on the part of the above mentioned O.P.

                       Case of the complainant, in brief, is that being a permanent resident at circuit house (Kamar Para), P.O.-Midnapore, P.S.-Kotwali, Dist-Paschim Medinipur, the complainant applied for domestic electricity connection to the O.P.-W.B.S.E.D.C.L.  Accordingly the O.P. issued a quotation and directed the complainant to deposit Rs.449/- within 90 days from issuance of the quotation dated 15/05/2015. It is stated in the petition of complaint that the complainant deposited the quotation money within the stipulated period but the O.P.  intimated the complainant by a letter dated  01/08/2015 the O.P.-W.B.S.E.D.C.L  could not able to effect the said service connection due to

                                                                                                        Contd………..P/2

                                         

                                      

                                         ( 2 )

non-submission of  way leave permission.  It is further stated in the petition of complaint that after receiving the said letter the  complainant served legal notice upon the O.P.  on 09/12/2015 through her Ld. Advocate. After receiving such legal notice O.P. requested the complainant to appear at the premises where the electric supply to be affected on 26/12/2015 at 10:30 p.m. by a letter dated 19/12/2015.  It is stated by the complainant,  although the complainant was present at the said premises neither the O.P. nor his  men were present there. The complainant specifically stated that on several occasion she requested the O.P. to connect the electric supply and finally on 23/02/2017 O.P. refused to effect the said service connection at the said premises of the complainant on the basis of non-submission of way leave permission which, according to the complainant deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. and which compelled the complainant to file this instant case.  Accordingly the complainant has prayed for direction upon the O.P. to connect domestic electric service, to pay Rs.25,000/- towards compensation and to pay Rs.15,000/- towards cost of litigation.  

   O.P. has contested this case by filing written version, denying and disputing all the material allegation label against them,  stating, inter alia, the complainant resides at a long disputed premises where the O.P. made attempt  on several occasion but could not connect the said  service due to objection of the local  people and the same has been intimated to the  complainant vide letter no.MCC/3342 dated 30/12/2015. It is further stated by the O.P. that one Sunil Rana objected to effect the said connection as a case has been filed before the Ld. Executive Magistrate, Paschim Medinipur regarding the premises where  the complainant resides at, O.P. has also stated that they were present at the premises where they requested the complainant to appear on 26/12/2015 at about 10:30 p.m.  and such there was no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.  Accordingly the O.P. has prayed for  dismissal of the case with cost.

Both parties adduced evidence by affidavit. To prove their case both parties have examined themselves as PW-1 and  OPW-1 respectively and during their deposition some documents are marked as  exhibit 1 to 4 and exhibit x series respectively.

                                           Points for determination.

   

1. Is the complainant consumer under the O.P.-WBESDCL. ?
2. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. ?
3. Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for ?

                                                                                                                            Contd………..P/3

                                         

                                                                                     

                                                                      ( 3 )

                                            Decisions with reasons.

             Point no.1.                             

 It is stated in the petition of complaint that the complainant had been to the office of the O.P. to get the electric connection at her residence and accordingly she paid Rs.449/- towards quotation money to the O.P.-W.B.S.E.D.C.L. to get the said connection. Therefore, it is evident that the complainant hired service from the O.P. by paying consideration and thus the complainant became the consumer under the O.P.

Point no.1 is decided accordingly.  

             Point nos.2 & 3.

             Point nos. 2 & 3 taken up together for brief and comprehensive discussion & decision.

             Having heard the submission made by both sides and on perusal of the documents on record it appears that the complainant applied for domestic electricity connection to the O.P. to get the electricity connection at her residence. It is evident from the record that the O.P.-W.B.S.E.D.C.L. after  receiving the  application from the ends of the complainant issued a quotation on 15/05/2015 asking the complainant to deposit quotation money of Rs.449/- alongwith  some documents including way leave permission. However, it is alleged by the O.P.  that the complainant did not submit the way leave permission. It  further appears from the letter dated 19/12/2015 that the O.P.  has already intimated the complainant to file way leave  permission vide letter no.MCC/985 dated 01/08/2015 and  requested her to appear at the said premises with way leave permission on 26/12/2015 at about 10:30 p.m. to get effect  of the said service connection. It is also  evident from the petition of complaint that  the complainant has herself stated that the O.P.-W.B.S.E.D.C.L.  denied to effect the said service connection on the ground of non-furnishing of way leave permission from the ends of the complainant. It further appears that the letter dated 30/12/2015 sent by the O.P.-W.B.S.E.D.C.L. requested the complainant to submit the way leave permission unless their contractor could not effect the said connection due to objection.   

Further, it appears at the time of  deposition on dock OPW-1, Puspendu Pal deposited that they made attempt being present there for effecting electricity service connection at the  premises of the complainant in the year 2015 but the said service connection could not be provided due to objection raised by the local residents.

Considering the state of affairs as mentioned hereinabove we found that the complainant  did not act accordingly what she ought to have done as per quotation dated 15/05/2015, issued by  the O.P. to her, which was pre-condition for effecting service

Contd………..P/4

                                     

                                                                     ( 4 )

connection by the O.P. Since the complainant failed to comply which she required to do for having an electricity service connection, she cannot raised the question of deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. for non-effecting of the said connection.

               Points nos. 2 & 3 are decided accordingly.

In such view of the matter, we are of opinion that the O.P. has no deficiency in service.                                      

                             In the result the complaint case does not succeed.

                            Hence, it is,

                                                          ORDERED

                                                      that consumer complaint case being no.73/2017 is hereby dismissed but considering the circumstances without cost.

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

                Dictated and Corrected by me

                          Sd/- S. Sarkar                    P. K. Singha                                         Sd/-B. Pramanik. 

                               Member                                  Member                                           President

                                                                                                                                    District Forum

                                                                                                                                Paschim Medinipur