Judgment On 28.07.2005
This is case for new Electric Connection and Compensation.
The complainant’s case in short is that the complainant applied for electric connection at his resident on plea No. 1412 of village Nanda on 14.07.1995. The electric office supplied quotation for such connection on 17.03.1999 vide No. PKU/T-54/3816 after discussion with the complainant who agreed to provide a police. The complainant deposited the money on 26.03.1999. There after on the Usha Rani Bos filed a file suit on 19.05.99 before the hd. Civil Judge (T.S.60/99) for restraining the OPs in giving electric connection in the house of the complainant. That suit has been dismissed on 20.01.2004. The complainant again applied with OP for giving electric connection on 20.09.2004. The OPs have not giving electric connection file date. So the filed this case for electric connection at his residence could compensation.
The OPs contested the case by filing be written statement where in they denied the material allegation of the case and submitted that the case is not maintainable. The statement in the complaint one false and baseless. They further submitted that Sri Swapan Ganguli filed on application for ne connection on 14.07.1995 and quotation was issued Sri Ganguli on 26.03.99 put new connection Sri Ganguli premises was not elected due to objection is the to count Srimati Usha Bua and others. Hd. Civil Judge has been pleased to pays on order on 11.02.2004 and Sri ganguly applied on 21.09.2004 for electcting electric connection. Sri Ganguli further applied on 01.011.2004 on the same issue. The OPs further s8ubmitited that Sri Buyjoy Kr. Jana the his man of Paksura Call Centre was sent to elected new connection on 20.11.2004. But he expressed his qualifies on the in the way of existing pole and other tress are there and he requested the consumer to clear up the road but the consumer denied to do no and did not take part.
Under the circumstances the OPs pray for dismissed of the case with costs.
Points for consideration
On the basis of the above pleadings of the parties the following points on takes up for consideration.
- Is the case maintainable?
- Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops?
- Is the complainant entitled to any relief as prayed for?
Decision
Points No.1-3. All the points are taken up to gather for consideration as they are interlinked ked. It is admitted by the Ops that the complainant in a Consumer Under him as the deposited the amount of quotation issued by the OP for electric connection so filing the case as consumer is not maintainable. Further it is to the decided be whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops? It is admitted by the OPs that the complainant applied for electric connection on 14.07.1995 and the OPs issued quotation for such connection on 26.03.99. It is not under stood why such delay for allot two and half years in issuing quotation by the Ops. No explanation given by the Op0s in this regard. So admittedly we can say delay in issuing quotation in no doubt deficiency on the part of the Ops. Further no order shown by the OPs in the y were restrained. By the count for not giving electric connection when complainant. Again, it is found from the document Ext 1 that the suit No. T.S. 60/99 filed by once Usha was dismissed on 20.01.2004 admitted by the OPs. In spite of such dismissed the OPs have not taken any step for giving electric connection to the complainant the complaint again applied to the OPs for giving electric connection 21.09.2004 but as per statement, the Ops sent one being for frame on 20.11.2004. It is not understood why such delay in sudip the man for giving electric line. The statement after shows that due to tees and bamboo bush the electric line worked not elected but at the time of argument the shelf in the Ops submitted that the heeds will but no bar in giving electric line. His statement before the forum was contested when the OPs applied for police help for giving electric connection. The application for police help is Ext. 4. So admittedly the case say that the trees are not bar in giving electric connection. Again one application was filed by sudhesnu Rai Bua. Stating that the land where electric line is to the giving is a co –sharer property and a civil suit is pending bearing no. T.S. 154/05. But nowhere in the petition it has been stated that the if any registered order is giving electric line. So where in been in giving electric line to the complainant? It is admitted by the applicant that the land in question is a co-sharer property, Accordingly with the properly, Accordingly with the property is partitioned and civil suit is disposed of the complainant has equal night in inches of the premis3es in question and he has also the night to enjoy electricity as per decision reported in III 2005(1) P 455 CPr. Electricity is an executed ami9nity for life and a person can not be denied this on ground of property dispute.
Under the circumstances the case say that the complainant has been deprived of in getting electric line in his residence by the Ops and true is also unreasonable delay in taking action by the Ops. Therese are no doubt deficiency in service on the part with the OPs the complainant is entitled to have electric connection in his reproduce and also compensation for such delay. Thus the3ese points are disposed of accordingly.
In our view the case succeeds.
Hence,
Ordered
That the case be on the same is allowed on contract against the OPs. The OPs are directed to give electric line in the residence on the complainant for the with and compensation Rs.1000/- only by one month franchise date failing which the complainant may take step for execution on the order after expiry to the period mentioned above.
