C.F. CASE No. : CC/09/49
COMPLAINANT : Pushpa Rani Saha
W/o Late Bangshi Badan @ Dhar Saha
Vill. Khidirpur, Saratpally, P.O. Bethuadahari,
P.S. Nakashipara, Dist. Nadia.
OPPOSITE PART/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 : 12th January, 2010
: J U D G M E N T :
In brief, the case of the complainant is that she has one electric connection at her house bearing Consumer No. K044625. It is her further case that in order to construct house in her land the present meter connection requires to be shifted from the original place to another place for her domestic use. Accordingly, she contacted with the OP, but the OP has not yet shifted it. So on 13.08.08 she sent a letter to the OP intimating her difficulty for non-shifting the electric line. Besides this, she also requested the OP to shift the electric line which has passed to one Karim Sk’s house over her land. The OP got the letter, but to no effect. So having no other alternative she has filed this case praying for the reliefs as stated in the petition of complaint.
The OP Electricity Authority has contested this case by filing a written version, inter alia, stating that the case is not maintainable in its present form and nature. He has categorically stated that on 13.08.08 the complainant applied for replacement of service wire of her electric connection and shifting to service line of Karim Sk which was drawn to her land. Thereafter the OP men visited the premises of the petitioner on 24.12.08 and found that the meter of the connection including angel of service also to be shifted for proposed extension of her building. Accordingly, this OP requested the complainant to apply properly and arrange to provide the service cable for replacement, but she did not do so. Again the OP men visited the complainant’s premises on 05.09.09 for replacement of the service wire but due to non-availability of cable from the complainant/consumer they failed to do that. A quotation for Rs. 235/- as shifting charge of meter and other charges was sent to the complainant on 07.09.09. But she did not deposit the quotation money though it was duly accepted by her as a result of which the shifting work could not be done. Regarding the shifting of service wire of Karim Sk over the land of the complainant has already been done. The OP men again visited the complainant’s premises on 14.09.09 for replacement of service wire, but they could not do that due to non-availability of cable from the consumer’s end. So this OP has no fault in noncompliance with the request of the complainant. Hence, the complainant has no cause of action to file this case and it is liable to be dismissed against him.
POINTS FOR DECISION
Point No.1: Has the complainant any cause of action to file this case?
Point No.2: Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Both 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 both the parties, it is available to us that the complainant is a consumer under the OP who has one electric connection at her house. It is also admitted by the both the parties that the complainant applied for shifting of her electric line to another place of her house in order to construct further room. From the written version it is available that on request of the complainant i.e., shifting of service wire of one Karim Sk which passed over the land of the complainant has already done by the OP. Ld. lawyer for the complainant also endorses this at the time of his argument. Ld. lawyer for the complainant also submits in course of argument that the OP has already shifted the electric wire which has passed from the pole of the meter to the new place as per request of the complainant. Practically, both the demands of the complainant are fulfilled by the OP. From the annexed documents it is available that the complainant applied to the OP in writing on 13.08.08 with the request for replacement of the service wire of her electric connection and also to shift the service line of Karim Sk as was drawn over her land. We have already discussed that both the works are done by the OP. Quotation was sent to the complainant by the OP on 07.09.09 and the said quotation amount was deposited before the OP by the complainant on 21.10.09. The case was filed on 23.06.09 and the original letter was issued by the complainant to the OP on 13.08.08. From 'Annexure – A’ it is available that the OP already visited the premises of the complainant for the first time on 18.08.08 and then on 24.12.08 and thereafter on 05.09.09.
Therefore, considering the documents filed by both the parties, we find that step was taken by the OP as per prayer of the complainant within a short time undoubtedly, but it was not completed prior to filing of the case by the complainant. Undoubtedly, the OP was delayed in taking step specially sending a quotation to the complainant. All the works were done by him after filing this case including sending of quotation. From the facts of the case it is available that due to belated work of the OP the complainant has not suffered any financial loss or anything else.
Therefore, in view of the above discussions, we hold that as the complainant has not suffered any financial loss or any other damage due to belated compliance of her request by the OP, we don’t find to consider the prayer for giving compensation to the complainant. Considering the nature of this case, no cost is awarded to the complainant also. As the OP has already complied with the request of the complainant by replacing the service wire of the electric connection of the complainant and also shifting the service line of Karim Sk as was drawn over her land we find that the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for. In result the case fails.
Hence,
Ordered,
That the case, CC/09/49 be and the same is dismissed on contest without any cost.
Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.
