IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC /05/2015.
Date of Filing: 06.01.2015. Date of Final Order: 21.01.2016
Complainant: Partha Sarathi Ghosh, S/O Amarendra Kr. Ghosh, Vill. Giadara, P.O. Jibanti,
P.S. Kandi, Dist. Murshidabad.
-Vs-
Opposite Party: 1. Station Manager, Gokarna Electric Supply, WBSEDCL, P.O. Gokarna, P.S. Kandi,
Dist. Murshidabad.
2. Divisional Manager, Kandi(D) Divn. WBSEDCL. P.O.& P.S. Kandi, Dist. Murshidabad.
3. Regional Manager, WBSEDCL, P.O. & P.S. Berhampore, Dist. Murshidabad.
4. Pranab Mondal, S/O Late Biswanath Mondal, Vill. Giadara,
P.O. & P.S. Kandi, Dist. Murshidabad.
Present: Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya ………………….President.
Smt. Pranati Ali ……….……………….……………. Member
FINAL ORDER
Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya, Presiding Member.
The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 praying for direction upon the OP No.1 to connect the cable wire from the pole to the meter of the complainant and Rs.25, 000/- towards cost for harassment and mental pain and agony.
The complainant’s case, in brief, is that the electricity has been disconnected to the complainant’s house from the electric pole situated in plot No. 12 under Mouza Giadara, P.S Kandi on the road at the entrance of the house of the complainant. For that disconnection the complainant as well as the members of his family including the students and old parents were facing troubles. The complainant informed the same to OP Nos. 1 to 3 in writing. As a result on 31.05.14 an enquiry was held by the Gokarna Electric Supply and they were going to reconnect the said cable from the said pole. At that time one Pranab Mondal/ Op No.4 came to the spot and threatened to the employees of the Gokarna Electric Supply not to connect the cable with the said electric pole. Then they got frightened and fled away. Thereafter, on 03.06.14 the complainant informed to the Gokorna Station Manager and on 18.06.14 informed the matter to the OP No.2 and thereafter informed the OP No.3 but no result. Thereafter, the OP No.4 filed a Title Suit No. 147/14 against the Op No.1 and the complainant and got injunction order restraining the OP No.1 from connecting the cable with the electric pole but subsequently the injunction order was vacated by the Ld. court on 8.08.14 after hearing both sides. In spite of that order the OP No.1 did not take any action for connecting the electric cable and for that there is deficiency in service on the part of the Op No.1. Hence, the instant complaint.
Written version filed by the Op No.1, in brief, is that after vacating the injunction order by the Ld. Court, the staff of OP No.1 went to the spot for reconnection of the line but again due to
Protests raised by Op No.4 Pranab Monda against the said re-connection, they came back. Due to lack of Police support the line could not be re-connected. For that there is no deficiency on the part of the OP No.1 and for that the complaint is liable to be rejected. Hence, the instant written version.
Considering the pleadings of both parties the following points have been framed for the disposal of the case.
Points for decision:-
- Whether the case is maintainable in its present form and law?
- Whether the case is barred by law of limitation?
- Whether the case is barred by waiver, estoppels and acquiescence?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
- To what other relief/reliefs the complainant is entitled to get
Decision with Reasons.
Point Nos. 1 to 5.
All the points are taken up together for the sake continence.
The complainant’s case is for re-connection of disconnected cable wire from the electric pole to the meter situated in his house.
The complainant’s case, in brief, is that the for the protest raised by the OP No.4 the electric line could not be re-connected by the OP No.1 from the electric pole situated at the entrance of the house of the complainant. The OP No.4 got injunction order by filing T/s No. 147/14 and the said injunction order was vacated by the Ld. court after hearing both sides on 08.08.14. In spite of that order the electric connection was not re-connected and for that the complainant filed this complaint.
On the other hand, the case of the OP No.1 WBSEDCL, in brief, is that in spite of vacating the Injunction Order by the Ld. court, One Pranab Mondal raised objection at the time of reconnection and due to lack of Police help they failed to reconnect the said line.
To prove the case the complainant has filed the relevant documents, information slip of the Ld. court in respect of vacation of the injunction order passed in T.S No. 147/14.
On the other hand, the OP No.1 WBSEDCL has filed only written version but has not filed any evidence-on-affidavit rebutting statements of the complainant.
In the written version the OP No.1 has pointed out that even after rejection of the injunction order for the protest of OP No.4 and other neighbours they failed to reconnect the cable line because of non-availability of Police help.
In this case the OP No.4 has not turned up where he filed a Suit and the injunction order was vacated by the Ld. court on contest in his presence and for that in this case the OP No.4 has nothing to raise any objection.
In this case the OP No.1 to 3 have filed written versions but has not adduced any rebuttable evidence against the materials on record filed by the complainant mainly information slip of the Ld. Court rejecting the injunction order against OP-WBSEDCL.
Considering the above discussions, as a whole, we have no other alternative but to conclude
that the complainant is entitled to get re-connection of the electric line from the concerned electric pole with Police Protection and the cost for Police Protection is to be borne by the complainant.
On the basis of the above discussions, all the points are disposed of in favour of the complainant and as such the complainant will get reconnection with the assistance of the Police and the cost, if any, for the police help is to be borne by the complainant.
Hence,
Ordered
that the Consumer Complainant No. 05/2015 be and the same is hereby allowed on contest against the Op Nos. 1 to 3 and on merit against OP No.4 .
The Op No.1 is directed to re-connect the electric cable in between the concerned electric pole and the meter situated in the house of the complainant with the assistance of the Police at the cost of the complainant.
The Police Authority is directed to help the OP no.1 at the time of restoring the electric cable.
OP No.4 is restrained from raising any objection in the matter of reconnection of electric cable from the concerned pole to the meter situated in the house of the complainant.
The OP No.1 is directed to seek police help immediately at the cost of the complainant.
The OP No.1 is also directed to effect the electric cable from the pole to the meter of the complainant within one month from the date of police help in default the OP No.1 is to pay Rs.100/- as fine for each day’s delay and the amount so accumulated shall be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account.
Let a plain copy of this order be made available and be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties on contest in person, Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand under proper acknowledgment / be sent forthwith under ordinary post to the concerned parties as per rules, for information and necessary action.
