Sri Kamal De, President
This case revolves over OP’s failure to effect electric service connection to the premises of the Complainant.
In a nutshell, case of the Complainant, is that he applied for a domestic service connection in his family dwelling house situated on Plot No. 640 under Mouza Mahammadpur, P.S. Nandakumar, Dist. Purba Medinipur. According to the Complainant, the plot of land originally belonged to his father, who subsequently transferred the same in the name of the Complainant as well as his brother by a registered deed in the year 1984. It is the further case of the Complainant that as per letter dated 28-03-2011, issued by the OP, he deposited requisite earnest money on the very same day. Thereafter, he also deposited necessary security deposit as per the quotation issued by the OP on 07-07-2011. However, the OPs are allegedly sitting idle over his application for providing service connection to his dwelling house. Hence, this case.
The OP, on notice, appeared to defend its case and submitted Written Version denying all the material allegations of the Complainant. It is averred by the OP that, on the basis of the application of the Complainant for effecting service connection to his dwelling house, an inspection was held on 21-09-2011, when it was detected that in order to effect the desired connection, seven nos. PCC poles would be required. Accordingly, a quotation was issued on 08-10-2011; also an agreement was made on that day on submission of WBSEDCL Procedure A (2010). Subsequently an erection order was issued in favour of the enlisted contractor, M/s Mahakali Engineering Works, who erected the necessary PCC poles. However, at the time of stringing of wire, local people, namely, Gour Chandra Dhara, Ratan Chandra Dhara, Sudarshan Bera, Narayan Majhi, Rabi Bera, raised physical objection at site and as a result, the enlisted contractor had to retreat on the face of such physical opposition. The OP has denied any laches on its part and prayed for dismissal of the instant case.
Points for consideration
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OP?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief, as sought for by him?
Decision with reasons
Point Nos. 1&2:
Both these inter-linked points are taken up together for the sake of convenience of discussion.
The solitary ground cited by the OP for its inability to execute the job of effecting service connection to the premises of the Complainant is physical resistance that had allegedly been put forth by some local people. We, however, find that for the reasons best known to the OP, it has not placed on record copy of any objection letter from the above referred persons, or even any affidavit from them. In fact, no report or affidavit from the enlisted agency, i.e., M/s Mahakali Engineering Works, that has allegedly weathered the physical obstruction from those persons, is also forthcoming before us. Neither has it bothered to shed any light about the reason for their apprehension or their locus standi in the matter. Thus, on a thoughtful consideration of the matter in its entirety, we find no substance in the defense advanced by the OP behind its inability to effect service connection to the premises of the Complainant.
On the other hand, it appears, under the Electricity Act, 2003, the OP has a bounden duty to effect service connection to an intending applicant within thirty days from the date of receipt of such application. Clearly, the OP has failed to discharge its obligation as stipulated under the statue. Even for the sake of argument, if it is assumed that some persons indeed put stiff resistance to the enlisted contractor deputed by the OP, one wonders, what prevented it or the enlisted contractor from seeking police assistance to carry out the job. After accepting requisite money from a prospective customer, a service provider cannot take the entrusted job so lightly. Sincerity of purpose on the part of a service provider must remain above board.
All these facts clearly point out gross deficiency in service on the part of the OP. We have no qualms whatsoever, therefore, to hold that the Complainant has a legitimate right to get the service connection effected at his residence without any further delay and for the lackadaisical approach of the OP, we hold it liable to pay some compensation and litigation cost to the Complainant.
Accordingly, case of the Complainant succeeds.
Hence,
ORDERED
that C. C. No. 94/2015 be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP. OP is directed to effect service connection to the premises of the Complainant and if required with police help and in that case, cost of police help was to be borne by the complainant, within 40 days hence. Besides, OP would also pay compensation and litigation cost to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 5,000/-, respectively, to the complainant within the period stipulated hereinabove. In case the OP neglects/fails to ensure necessary compliance of this order within the stipulated time frame as above, Complainant may initiate execution proceedings against it and in that case, OP would be liable to pay fine @ Rs. 50/- per diem from this day till full and satisfactory compliance of this order.
