C.F. CASE No.          : CC/09/42                                                                                                         

 

COMPLAINANT             :  Parimal Ghosh,

S/o Late Nilkanta Ghosh,

Vill. Khidirpur (Madhyapara),

P.O. Bethuadahari, 

P.S. Nakashipara, Dist. Nadia.

 

 

       –  Vs  – 

 

 

OPPOSITE PARTY/OP         :  Station Manager,

Bethuadahari Group Electric Supply,

Vill. + P.O. Bethuadahari, 

P.S. Nakashipara, Dist. Nadia.

            

 

 

PRESENT              :  KANAILAL CHAKRABORTY             PRESIDENT

        :  KUMAR MUKHOPADHYAY          MEMBER

        :  SMT SHIBANI BHATTACHARYA       MEMBER  

 

DATE OF DELIVERY             

OF  JUDGMENT               :    16th December, 2009.

 

 

:    J U D G M E N T    :

 

In brief, the case of the complainant is that he applied to the OP for supplying electric connection at his brick field.   Accordingly, as per quotation of the OP he deposited Rs. 2,50,909/- in favour of the OP on 03.10.08.  The OP issued receipt also  in  his  favour, but  the  OP did  not sanction  electric  connection to  his 

Page  2  of  6

brick field.  So he, time and again, requested the OP for supply electric connection, but to no effect.  He has also mentioned that the service connection No. issued by the OP in his favour is 9-25164.   For the last time, he requested the OP on 15.12.08 to give electric connection, but to no effect.   So having no other alternative, he has filed this case praying for the reliefs as stated in the petition of complaint.   

 

The OP, Station Manager, Bethuadahari Group Electric Supply, WBSEDCL has contested this case by filing a written version, inter alia, stating that the complainant has no cause of action to file this case.  It is his specific contention that as per his quotation, the complainant deposited Rs. 2,50,909/- on 17.10.08  and service connection No. was registered as No. IND/25164.   He further submits that after issuance of work order the authorized contractor of this OP went to the site and started to execute the work while one, Dilip Das, the secretary of the DTW  resisted the contractor's men to erect the pole and also prevented them to draw HT line from the DTW which was proposed by the complainant.   The said contractor informed the OP about his inability to complete the work on 06.07.09.   Accordingly, this OP informed the complainant about the inspection vide his office Memo No. BTY/1631 on 06.07.09 with a request to submit wayleave for completion of the half done job for drawal of HT Line.  This OP is always eager to give electric connection to the complainant, but as his contractor was obstructed by Sri Dilip Das, under compelling circumstances it was not possible for him to complete the work for supply of electric connection to this complainant.  If the complainant submits any wayleave he will immediately complete the unfinished work for giving electric connection to his brick field.   So he has no latches on his part for not giving electric connection to the complainant's brick field.   So the case is at all not maintainable against him and the same is liable to be dismissed.

 

Page  3  of  6

POINTS  FOR  DECISION

 

Point No.1: Is the  case maintainable in its present form and nature?

Point No.2:         Has the complainant become able to prove his case?

Point No.3:      Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for?

 

DECISION  WITH  REASONS

 

All the points are taken up together for discussion as they are interrelated and for the sake of convenience. 

On a careful perusal of the petition of complaint along with the annexed documents and the written version filed by the OP and also after hearing the arguments advanced by the ld. lawyers for the parties, it is available on record, that the complainant, Sri Parimal Ghosh applied before the OP, Bethuadahari Group Electricity Supply to supply electric connection to his brick field.  The OP gave quotation and asked the complainant to deposit Rs. 2,50,909/- as quotation money which was duly paid by the complainant on 03.10.08.   Thereafter, the OP engaged one contractor to supply the electric connection from the nearest deep tube well pole.  It is the specific contention of the OP that when the men of the contractor were working and work was on progress due to objection raised by one, Dilip Das, Secretary of the DTW, the contractor's men failed to erect poles and to draw the HT Line.  So having no other alternative, they had to stop the work keeping half done of the job.  The OP specifically submits that unless the complainant supplies any alternative wayleave it is not possible for him to draw HT line in order to give electric connection to his brick field.  Ld. lawyer for the OP draws our attention to Section 49 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 of the WBSEB in which it is stated “The  consumer  shall  arrange  at  his  own  expense  for  any  necessary  wayleave, 

Page  4  of  6

licence or sanction.  The board shall not be bound to afford a supply until the wayleave or sanction is granted.”  Relying on this section of Electricity Rule, he submits that it will not possible for him to give electric supply to the complainant unless he submits any wayleave as one, Dilip Das resisted to erect a pole for drawing the HT line from the DTW line.   Section 185 (1) of the Electricity Act, 2003 provides that “Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 and the Electricity Regulatory Commission Act, 1998 are hereby repelled excepting some provisions”.  From this Section of law it is available that Section 49 of the Electricity Act, 1948 has been repelled.  So we find that it is not mandatory on the part of the complainant to submit wayleave for drawing of electricity line to his premises.  Besides this, there is no whisper in the written version that prior to sanction of electric connection and taking of quotation money the OP issued a letter asking the complainant to submit wayleave for drawing HT line from the deep tube well pole.  Besides this, there is no document filed by the OP to show that one Dilip Das filed any objection before him at the time of drawing HT Line through the pole of DTW.  The status of Dilip Das is not clear to us.  From the written version and the other annexed documents filed by the OP, it is available that said Dilip Das and his men raised objection orally at the time of drawing HT line by the men of the OP from DTW pole.  The OP is a Government concern.  So it is his duty to supply electric connection to a consumer from whom he accepted quotation money.  Complainant applied for supply of electric connection to his brick field on 09.03.07 and after examining the site the OP was satisfied and as per his direction, quotation amount was deposited by the complainant on 03.10.08.  Since 03.10.08 till 05.06.09, i.e., the date of filing in this case the OP remained silent and did not intimate the complainant about the progress of his work or about the difficulty in drawing HT line for supplying the electric  connection  to the premises of the complainant.  After filing of this case, he 

Page  5  of  6

sent a letter to this complainant on 06.07.09 asking him to submit wayleave towards drawal of HT line for effecting new service connection bearing No. IND/25164.  So we have no hesitation to hold that there is gross deficiency in service on the part of the OP to fulfill the demand of a consumer from whom he has already taken quotation money one year before.   Ld. lawyer for the complainant has cited a ruling from 1 (2009) CPJ Page 415, Chhattisgarh State Commission rightly where the Hon'ble Commission has decided, “Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 2(1)(g) and 14(1)(d) – Electricity – Connection delayed – Electricity Board being 100% Government owned body, comes within definition of Government – Liable to take all measures for supply of electricity to each and every consumer – Depriving consumer from connection, for more than 3 years, on pretext that some villagers opposing, amounts to deficiency in service.”   On a careful perusal of this Ruling we hold that it is applicable in the present case also as in this case the OP being a Government owned body is liable to take all measures for supply of electricity to the complainant consumer.  

In view of above discussions our considered view is that the OP should take proper step for supply of electricity to the complainant consumer as long period has been passed since the time of applying for supply of electricity.  We do also hold that the complainant has become able to prove his case and he is entitled to get reliefs as prayed for.  In result the case succeeds.

Hence,

Ordered,

 

That the case, CC/09/42 be and the same is decreed on contest against the OP.   The OP is directed to supply electric connection to the complainant's brick field within a period of 02 months since this date in default the complainant is entitled  to  get  interest @ 9% per  annum upon the deposit amount of Rs. 2,50,909/- 

Page  6  of  6

since that date till the date of supply of electric connection to his premises.   The complainant is also entitled to get Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service by the OP + Rs. 1,000/- as litigation cost, i.e., in total Rs. 6,000/-.  The OP is further directed to pay the decretal dues to this complainant within a period of 02 months since this date in default the complainant is allowed to get interest @ 9% per annum upon the decretal dues since this date till the date of realization of the full amount.

Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.