This is a case for new Electric Connection and Compensation.
The Complainant’s case in Short is that the complainant opposite for new electric connection on 16.10.2003. The electricity department after enquiry and perusing the papers issued quotation the complainant deposited Rs.810/- in total in favour of the op the complainant again informed the op that true is o necessity of no objection certificate as the complainant is the co-share of the laud over which the electric connection to the installed. One Sk Usiur Rahaman and Sk Taiar Ali applied before the op do that the complainant may not get electric connection. The complainant on receiving the notice of the op appeared before him on 05.06.2004, the date fixed by the op with all papers but the objector did not appear on the date fixed. In spite of that the op declared did not get any electric connection to the complainant thus after the complainant as per director of the op got an order under section 144920 of Cr.p.c. from the learned Magistrate. The Op vied not give any electric connection to the premises of the complainant opposite of seven prayers. Under the circumstances the complainant prayers for electric connection and compensation of Rs. 4,96,40.00 in total.
This case is contested by the op filling a written statement wherein he divided the material allegation of the case and also stated that the complainant Sk Afsarul Ali applied for electric connection on 21.10.2003 The op received objection against electrical electric connection in the premises of Sk Afsarul Ali vide memo no 3748 Dt. 5.12.2003 from and one Sk. Taiyar Ali, Usiur Rahaman and also received a legal notice from the lawyer of the said Complainants on 13.10.03 vide memo No. 293322933 and it is submitted that a separate objection letter received on 12.05.2004 vide memo no 457. That due to way leave dispute as per clause no 6(ii) of argument executed with the consumer, a notice was served to Sk Afsarul Ali for submission of proper way-leave in W.B.S.E.B prescribed forum of on 30.03.2004 vide the office memo No. TES/9/1066 Dt. 30.03.2004. No-objection yet to the received from the complainant and the applicant has not completed his formalities for taking electric connection. It is a way-leave dispute among the co-share of the premises. So the complainant is not entitled to get any reality a prayed for under the circumstances the op prayer for dismissal of the Case with Cost.
Points for Decision
- To the complainant a Consumer under the OP?
- The Complaint completed all formalities in having electric line?
- Is the complainant a co share of the property in question?
- Is there any difficulty in service court part of the OP?
- Is the complainant entitled to have any forfeit as prayer for?
Point No. 1:- In this point it is to the deducted whether the complainant is the Consumer Order the OP. It is admitted by both the parties that the complainant deposited in quay as par question of the OP. So the complainant is entitled to have the forfeit/service from the Op. under the circumstances. We can say that the complainant is the Consumer under the OP.
Point No. 2-4:- All these points are leave up together for consideration as they are other linked. It is the case of complainant that the complainant is the Co-Share of the disputed law. The ROR WST 12 clearly indicate that the predecessor the complainant was the Co-Sharer and disputed property and after heir the complainant the case the co-sharer with property in question moreover the OP raised no objection in this point. So admittedly we can say there the complainant is the co-share are disputed property. It is the case of the OP that the complainant has not conflicted all the formalities are no objection certificate frame co-share has been guided by the complainant. It is evident fraudulent U/S that the OP has not stated that are the formalities that mentioned only as regards no objection certificate. Question given by the OP shows that he opts inspection issued.
The quotation and the complainant disputed the amount and question the quotation is all Ext and deposit r3eceives one NO. 4,4/1,4/2. As regards no objection certificate he can say that as the complainant is the co-share with disputed property so there is no necessity of no objection certificate of other co-share. The decision refused in CPR 2005(1) P. 455 clearly stated that “electricity is an essential amenity for life and a person can’t be denied this as ground of property dispute.” Further there is the New Ld. Magistrate as regard for getting electric connection by complainant. So it is not understood why the electric live was not given to the complainant. Non-installation of electric line to the complainant by the op is no doubt deficiency in service and the tenant of the OP. Thus, the points are disputed by accordingly.
Point No. 6:- On the basis of forgoing discussion and materials on record. We can say that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP and the complainant is entitled to have electric connection along with the compensation. The amount of compensation as claimed by the complainant is too excessive which we will not get. But he is entitled to the compensation for such harassment by the OP.
Considering the well say the case of the complainant succeeds.
Hence Order
That the case be the same is allowed are contest against the OP. The OPs the directed to provide electric connection to the complainant by 15 days from the date and compensation Rs.10,000/- by one month from the date fail up which the complainant may excete the allowed through their forum after expiry period mentioned above.
