Date of filing:12.07.2016 Date of disposal:28.4.2017
Complainant: Anwar Sk., S/o. Lt. Jamshed Sk., residing at Vill.-Siyaldanga, P.O.-Baghna Para,
P.S.-Kalna, Dist.-Burdwan, Pin-713501.
-VERSUS-
Opposite Party: 1. Station Manager, Dhatrigram, Electric Supply(Consumer Care Centre), Vill.
& P.O.-Dhatrigram, P.S.-Kalna, Dist.-Burdwan, Pin-713501.
2. Divisional Manager (Rural), WBSEDCL, Burdwan “D” Division, Power House
Complex, Frozer Avenue, Burdwan-713101.
Present : Hon’ble Member : Smt. Silpi Majumder
Hon’ble Member : Sri Pankaj Kr. Sinha
Appeared for the Complainant: Ld. Advocate Pappu Gupta.
Appeared for the Opposite Parties: Ld. Advocate, Biswanath Nag.
JUDGEMENT
This complaint is filed by the Complainant u/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service against the OPs due to delay in effecting domestic electric service connection to him.
The brief fact of the case of the Complainant is that being a daily agricultural labour he desired to get domestic electric connection at his house and applied for the same to the OP-1, who had collected Rs.399/- in cash from him on 08.10.2014 towards security deposit for new connection and also received a sum of Rs.400/- as service connection charge in accordance with the quotation issued by the OP-1 to him on 04.07.2014. Inspite of completion with all the formalities for obtaining new electric connection no effective measure was taken by the OP-1 to supply the same. The Complainant used to visit the office of the OP-1 on regular basis and each and every time the Complainant requested the OP-1 to provide him electric connection, but to no effect. He had to wait for long one year to get electric connection and when the same was not effected he made written correspondence with the OP-1 on 28.09.2015, which was received by the OP-1, but inspite of such request letter the OP-1 did not take any step in the matter and then the Complainant had to approach before Burdwan District Consumer Protection and Welfare Centre by issuing letter dated 13.01.2016. The said Centre had issued a letter to the OP-1 on 27.01.2016 requesting to provide new electric connection at the premises of the Complainant and upon receipt of the said letter electric connection was effected at the house of the Complainant on 29.01.2016. Therefore there is delay in giving electric connection to the Complainant from the date of receipt of the necessary charges as per quotation. As per the Electricity Act the Electric Department is required to effect the line within a month from the date of making application. It appears that the OP-1 is bound to provide the line within 09.11.2014 i.e. within 30 days from the date of payment of quotation money and thereby delay has been occurred for the period from 08.11.2014 to 29.01.2016, for which the OPs are liable to make payment of delay charges @Rs.1000/- per day for the abovementioned period. As the grievance of the Complainant had not been redressed by the OPs, hence having no other alternative the Complainant has approached before this Ld. Forum by filing this complaint praying for direction upon the OP-1 to make payment of Rs.4,47,000/- due to delay in effecting line for 447 days @Rs.1000/-, compensation to the tune of Rs.25,000/- due to mental agony, pain and harassment and litigation cost of Rs.7,500/- to him.
The petition of complaint have been contested by the OPs by filing conjoint written version contending that the Complainant applied for a new electric service connection for domestic category and deposited amounting to Rs.799/-as per system generated quotation towards security deposit and service connection charges. Upon receipt of the said amount work order was issued to the agency for effecting electric connection at the house of the Complainant. The said agency had submitted a report on 18.11.2014 wherein it was mentioned that the service connection of the Complainant would be effected after completion of effecting the service connection of his elder brother whose connection needed one PCC pole for such effect. Therefore the service connection became dependent on the service connection of the elder brother of the Complainant. Apart from that no main switch was installed at the premises of the Complainant and in view of the above a system generated letter was issued to the Complainant being memo no-DHT/3569 dated 02.12.2014 mentioning therein as to why his intending service connection was withhold, but the Complainant did not bother to reply of the same nor submitted any written application enquiring about his pending service connection. Thereafter the Complainant submitted a written prayer to the OP-1 on 28.09.2015 praying for effecting the electric service connection as the electric connection, on which he was dependent, had been effected, but he did not provide any information regarding installation of the main switch. The technical staff of the OPs has also verified that he did not install any main switch, which is the basic requirement for effecting new electric service connection. The OPs have intimated the Complainant that he has failed to discharge his liability and responsibility by issuing letter dated 05.10.2015 and also asked him to complete with all formalities as early as possible, but the Complainant did not respond the letter. Without discharging his liability he approached before the Burdwan District Consumer Protection and Welfare Centre, who requested the OPs to look in to the matter for resolving the dispute and thereafter service connection was effected. According to the OPs the Complainant knowing everything just to harass the OPs has filed the instant complaint, which is a fit case to be dismissed with cost. The OPs have further mentioned that in view of the Section 42(5) & 42 (6) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Rules and Regulations framed therein the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to try the instant dispute and the Complainant’s redressal can be resolved by the Regulatory Commission where the Complainant is entitled to ventilate his grievance. According to the OPs the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.
The Complainant has adduced evidence on affidavit.
We have carefully perused the record; documents filed by the Complainant and heard argument advanced by the ld. Counsel for the Complainant. On the date of argument none was present on behalf of the OPs. Though on behalf of the Complainant time was sought for verbally, but we were not inclined to grant further time as this complaint is fixed for argument since 19.01.2017. It is seen by us that on 19.01.2017, 16.02.2017 the Complainant took adjournments and for this reason we were reluctant to allow the prayer of the Complainant and the Complainant was directed to get ready at once for advancing argument.
It is also evident from the record that inspite of getting opportunity the OPs did not adduce any evidence on affidavit nor filed any documents in support of the averment as made out in their written version.
It is seen by us that the Complainant applied for domestic electric service connection at his premises to the OP-1 and as per quotation he paid a sum of Rs.799/- towards the security charge and service connection charges on 08.10.2014. Upon receipt of the said amount the OPs have issued work order and direction was given to an agency for effecting electric connection to the Complainant. Though the case of the OPs is that as for giving electric connection to the elder brother of the Complainant one PCC pole was required, hence until and unless the pole is erected and connection effect to the elder brother, the electric connection could not be effected to the Complainant and moreover it was detected that the Complainant did not install the main switch being a necessary and important requirement, the connection could not be given to the Complainant. But in this respect we are to say that no documentary evidence have been adduced by the OPs in support of such contention, hence the averment as made out in their written version cannot be accepted as true. Admittedly the electric connection was effected to the Complainant on 29.01.2017 i.e. after lapse of 447 days from the date of deposit of the quotation amount by the Complainant. We have also noticed that after making deposit of the quotation amount on 08.10.2014, while the OPs did not take any step to provide him electric connection, hence after lapse of more than 11 months the Complainant made written correspondence with the OP-1 wherein request was made by him to provide electric connection. In this regard we are to say that as to why the Complainant kept himself silent over the matter for a prolonged period. It is stated by the Complainant that as the OPs did not take any step to effect electric service connection to him, he approached before the BDCP & Welfare Centre requesting to resolve his dispute on 27.01.2016 and within two days i.e. on 29.01.2016 the new electric service connection was provided at his premises by the OPs. It is seen by us that this complaint has been initiated by the Complainant after about more than five months praying for direction upon the OP-1 to pay penalty to the tune of Rs.4,47,000/- due to delay in effecting electric connection for about 447 days from the date of deposit of the quotation amount to the OP-1. It is also stated by the Complainant that he did not claim the said amount towards penalty from the OP-1 by making a written prayer in view of the Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and only by filing this complaint he has sought for the amount. In this context we are of the opinion that until and unless written prayer is made by the Complainant to the OP-1 for making payment of the aforementioned amount as penalty due to delay in effecting electric connection and the same is refused and denied by the OP-1, we are not in a position that there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP-1 because inspite of delay effecting the OP-1 has failed to abide by its own Act. In our view the complaint is a premature one. After getting refused by the OP-1, the Complainant may take legal course, if any, if not barred otherwise. As the Complainant has failed to prove deficiency in service on behalf of the OPs, hence the complaint fails.
Going by the foregoing discussion, hence it is
Ordered
that the complaint is dismissed on contest without any cost.
Dictated and corrected by me.
(Silpi Majumder)
Member
D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan
(Silpi Majumder) (Sri Pankaj Kr. Sinha)
Member Member
D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan
