Date of filing : 15.12.2014
Date of S/R : 22.01.2015
Date of Order : 04.09.2015
Shri Sukumar Maity
S/o-lt. Gostobehari Maity, P.O.-South Jhapordah,
P.S. Domjur, District-Howrah-711402…………………….Complainant
Vs.
1) The District Engineer,
WBSEDCL, Domjur, CCC-3135400
P.S.-Domjur, District-711402.
2) Tultul Maity,
3) Smt. Rumki Chowdhury,
4) Smt. Tumpa Maity,
All son and daughters of Lt. Parimal Maity,
5) Smt Tanushree Maity,
Widow of Lt. Parimal Maity,
Address of O.P. 2 to 5 is
South Jhapordah, P.S.-Domjur,
At 389, G. T. Road, Bally Bazar,
Howrah-711402.
P R E S E N T
Hon’ble President : Shri B. D. Nanda, M.A. ( double ), L.L.M., WBHJS.
Hon’ble Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
Hon’ble Member : Shri A.K. Pathak .
F I N A L O R D E R
This is an application U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, filed by the Petitioner, Sukumar Maity against the O.P.s, WBSEDCL, Domjur CCC-3135400 and four others , praying for a direction upon the O.P. No. 1 to supply electricity to the petitioner and if necessary with the police assistance and directing I.C. Domjur P.S. to render assistance to the O.P.1 at the time of installation of electricity line and also direct O.P. 2 to 5 not to obstruct the O.p.1 in rendering such electric line and to pay compensation for a sum of Rs. 50,000 for mental and agony and harassment and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation cost.
The case of the petitioner is that he has been residing at Mouja South Jhapordha, P.S.-Domjur and applied for getting new electric connection for his domestic use at his residence in the office of the O.P. 1 who sent security deposit bill of Rs. 748/- on 27.09 .2014 and he paid the bill on the same date . The O.P. did not arrange the new connection and in collution with O.P. No. 2 to 5 delayed the matter . The O.P. No. 2 to 5 raised obstruction against such installation claiming to be co-owners even though they have been enjoying electric and having no other alternative the petitioner filed this case.
The O.P. 1 , WBSEDCL contested the case for filing a written version wherein they denied the allegation made against them and submitted that the O.P. received the application for new connection at the premises of the petitioner at Domjur and made inspection and the petitioner made the payment of security deposit . When the O.P. went to the residence of the petitioner there was stiff objection from the O.P. 2 to 5 being Tanushree Maity and other and they fail to effect the supply and thus there was no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on their part. The O.P. further submitted that they are always ready and willing to provide service to the intending consumer as a regulatory authority but their employee also should not be opened to risk and danger. Thus the case be dismissed with cost.
O.P. No. 2 to 5 though appear in the case filed no W/V and they remained away from the Forum and thus the case is exparte against them.
On the above cases of the parties the following issues are frame :
- Is the case maintainable in the present form ?
- Has the petitioner any cause of action to file the case ?
- Whether any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. No. 1 & 2 ?
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for ?
Decision with reason
All this issues are taken up together for the shake of convenience and brevity of discussion and to skip of reiteration . In support of his case the petitioner Sukumar Maity filed affidavit as well as the documents like receipt of his security deposit and the record of rights showing the property recorded in his name .
Regarding the obstruction raised by O.P. 2 to 5 as submitted here this Forum finds that they did not appear and filed any objection to that effect and their acts and conducts concede the case of the petitioner. When the O.P. 1 is ready and willing to render electricity to the petitioner who has proved his possession over the house then this Forum thought it wise to direct the O.P. 1 to supply electric connection to the petitioner as life of human being in these modern days cannot be thought of without electricity and water. Regarding obstruction the Forum also finds it wise to direct the local I.C., Domjur P.S. to render police assistance to O.P.1 at the time of giving such electric connection to the petitioner who may also supply for much police assistance before the I.C. Domjur P.S.
In view of above discussion and findings the case of the petitioner succeeds .
Court fees paid is correct.
Hence,
Ordered,
That the Consumer Case No. 635/2014 be and the same is allowed in contest against the O.P. No. 1 and exparte against O.P. No. 2 to 5 but without cost and without compensation considering the facts and circumstances special of the case.
The petitioner is entitled is relief as prayed for except compensation and cost as this Forum finds no latches on the part of the O.P. No. 1. Who is directed to provide new electric service connection to the petitioner in the house of the petitioner within 30 days from the date of this order and O.P. 2 to 5 are directed not to create any obstruction while such electric service connection is provided to the petitioner and in case of any obstruction the O.P. 1 is to take the assistance of I.C., Local Domjur P.S. who would render assistance for such connection. The O.P.s are directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of this order failing the petitioner would be at liberty to put the final order for execution.
Supply the copy of the order to the parties free of cost.
Dictated and corrected
by me
( B. D. Nanda)
President, C.D.R.F. Howrah
