The instant appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) is at the behest of Opposite Parties to assail the judgment/final order dated 23rd August, 2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Purba Medinipur (in short, ‘Ld. District Forum’) in Consumer Complaint No. 240 of 2017. By the impugned order, the Ld. District Forum allowed the complaint lodged by respondent Smt. Khuku Rani Maity under Section 12 of the Act with certain directions upon the opposite parties/appellants like (1) to shift 11KV HT OH line from Plot No. 1148 of Mouza- Kalikakhali, J.L. No. 91, Khatian No. 306, P.S.- Chandipur, Dist.- Purba Medinipur as mentioned in the petition of complaint within 30 days without any further charge, (2) to pay litigation cost of Rs. 2,000/-.
The respondent herein being complainant lodged the complaint before the Ld. District Forum asserting that she has constructed a pacca building on Plot No. 1148, Mouza- Kalikakhali under P.S.- Chandipur in the Dist.- Purba Medinipur. Since 2013 there is a domestic electric connection in the said building under West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (W.B.S.E.D.C.L.). The complainant has stated that there is an over head electric line of 11KV over the Plot No. 1148. Due to such high voltage electric line there is every possibility of real danger at any time. Accordingly, on 10.01.2014 the complainant made an application to opposite party no. 1 for shifting of the said 11KV HT line. On 03.03.2015 opposite party no. 1 gave a letter for shifting of the same and communicated a quotation of Rs. 60,227/-. Accordingly, complainant deposited Rs. 60,227/- on 22.05.2015 to opposite party no. 1. However, as the shifting has not been made, the complainant wrote another letter on 13.06.2016 for shifting of the same. On 26.12.2016 the opposite party no. 1 again demanded a sum of Rs. 1,26,264/- from the complainant for shifting of the electric line. In this regard, all the requests including legal notice dated 15.03.2017 went in vain. Hence, the respondent on the allegation of deficiency in services on the part of opposite parties/appellants approached the Ld. District Forum with prayer for several reliefs, viz.- (a) to shift the high voltage electric line from the premises of the complainant; (b) to direct the opposite parties not to demand again Rs. 1,26,264/- for shifting of the high voltage line; (c) to pay compensation of Rs. 30,000/-; (d) to pay litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/- etc.
The opposite parties by filing a written version has stated that on the prayer of complainant regarding shifting of 11KV HT line a joint survey was conducted and on the basis of the same a quotation of Rs. 60,227/- was served to the complainant on 11.05.2015 and the complainant has paid the same amount. However, due to ROW issue and objection raised by Smt. Mira Rani Bag, neighbour of the complainant during execution of work for shifting of 11KV HT Line the shifting of line could not be effected. Subsequently, on 04.08.2016 a joint survey was again conducted with the complainant and as per proposed route shown by the complainant, the entire cost of shifting comes to Rs. 1,86,491/-. The complainant has already deposited a amount of Rs. 60,227/- and as such she was asked to make payment of balance amount of Rs. 1,26,264/-. The opposite parties have stated that there was no deficiency in services on the part of them.
After assessing the materials on record, the Ld. District Forum by the impugned order allowed the complaint with certain directions, as indicated above. To challenge the said order, the opposite parties have come up in this Commission with the present appeal.
I have heard the Ld. Advocate for the appellants and scrutinised the materials on record. Sole respondent had appeared but ultimately abstained from contest.
On perusal of copy of pleadings, evidence on record including the documentary evidence, it would reveal that the respondent is a resident of Mouza- Kalikakhali under P.S.- Chandipur in the Dist.- Purba Medinipur. The respondent has constructed the dwelling house there in the year 2013 and obtained a domestic electric connection being Consumer ID No. 202124818. There was an over head electric HT line of 11KV over the plot where the house of the respondent is situated. After purchase, feeling endangered of human life and safety, the respondent approached W.B.S.E.D.C.L. on 10.01.2014 for shifting of 11KV HT line from the over head of her premises. Accordingly, a joint survey was conducted and after approval a quotation was served for Rs. 60,227/-. But due to ROW issue during the execution of work for shifting of 11KV HT line the said work could not be executed.
Evidently, thereafter, a joint survey was conducted with the respondent on 04.08.2016. As per proposed new route shown by the respondent the entire cost of shifting comes to the tune of Rs. 1,86,491/-. As the respondent has paid Rs. 60,227/- on account of earlier quotation, the respondent was asked to make payment of balance amount of Rs. 1,26,264/- for shifting of electric line in accordance with the directions of the respondent, which prompted the respondent to knock the door of Ld. District Forum.
In this regard, it would be pertinent to record that on 16.08.2016 the respondent wrote a letter to the Assistant Manager (Tech II), Haldia Division informing him that for the purpose of shifting of 11KV over head line he will pay the quotation money. The respondent/complainant completed construction of her house in the year 2013 and at the relevant time 11KV HT line was there over the landed property of the respondent. On the request of the respondent, the appellants had made an attempt for shifting of 11KV HT line but due to resistance raised by one Smt. Mira Rani Bag, neighbour of respondent during execution work, the said work could not be done.
Therefore, it is palpably clear that there was no deficiency on the part of opposite parties/appellants. The Ld. District Forum has not assigned any reason how the opposite parties/appellants be held responsible unless quotation amount of Rs. 1,26,264/- is paid by the respondent. The Ld. District Forum had also no occasion in imposing litigation cost to the respondent/complainant as there was no cogent reason on the part of respondent/complainant to lodge the complaint without making payment of quotation amount.
Therefore, on evaluation of materials on record and having heard the Ld. Advocate for the appellant, I have no hesitation to hold that the Ld. District Forum has totally misdirected itself in construing the facts and circumstances of the case from proper perspective. As a result, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
For the reasons aforesaid, the instant appeal is allowed ex-parte. The impugned judgment/final order is hereby set aside.
Consequently, CC/240/2017 stands dismissed. However, the Appellants/Opposite Parties are directed to refund the amount of RS.60,227/- along with interest thereon @ 8% p.a. from the date of payment within 30 days if the Respondent/Complainant fails to pay the balance amount of quotation of Rs.1,26,264/-.
The Registrar of the Commission is directed to send a copy of this order to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Purba Medinipur at Tamluk for information.
