IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.

CASE No.  CC /39/2015.

 Date of Filing:            23.03.2015.                                             Date of Final Order: 23.09.2015.

Complainant: Usha Begam, W/O Gulan Sk, Ajodhy Nagar, P.O& P.S. Berhampore Town,

                        Dist. Murshidabad.

-Vs-

Opposite Party: Station Manager, Gorabazar C.C.C, WBSEDCL, P.O.& P.S. Berhampore,

                           Dist. Murshidabad. Pin 742101.

                       Present:  Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya   ………………….President.                                 

                                         Sri Samaresh Kumar Mitra ……………………..Member.           

                                                                        Smt. Pranati Ali ……….……………….……………. Member

FINAL ORDER

 Smt. Pranati Ali, Presiding Member.

The complainant’s case, in brief, is that the complainant applied for getting electric connection for domestic purpose of her residential house at Ajodhya Nagar, P.S. Berhampore, District Murshidabad to the OP/Station Manager, Gorabazar CCC, WBSEDCL, Berhampore, Murshidabad. Then the complainant deposited quotation amount for a sum of Rs.460/- as well as a sum of Rs.420/- as security money on 23.12.2014 before the OP as per quotation given by the OP after inspection. In spite of repeated requests of the complainant, the OP was reluctant to give the electric connection to her residence.   According to the complainant this act is a clear deficiency of service on the part of the OP. So, the complainant came to the Forum for proper redress.

The OP/Station Manager, Gorabazar CCC, WBSEDCL appeared in this case by filing written version, where he denied the allegation of deficiency of service. The OP stated that at the time of drawing the eclectic line of the petitioner, one Susanta Kumar Das raised objection that the said electric line is crossing over his plot of land for that reason the OP was unable to give the electric connection to the house of the complainant. So, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP.

Now, the only point to be considered in this case that whether the OP is liable for deficiency in service or not and whether the complainant is entitled to get relief or not.

                                                  Decision with reasons.

Admitted position of this case is that the complainant is a consumer of the OP by depositing quotation money which was prepared by the OP.

The complainant has filed this complaint mainly for getting electric connection in her premises. But though the OP prepared and sent quotation to the complainant as well as  accepted the quotation money from the complainant, yet the said electric connection was not given to the complaint. From the record it appears that the OP was silent to the complaint , but after start of the proceeding the OP appeared by filing written version where he mentioned that one Susanta Kumar Das, as a neighbour of the complainant, raised a verbal objection against the drawing of the service line pass over the land owned by him. So the OP was unable to give the connection. But there were not any specific documents and/or any discussion with the complainant regarding the objection, so, the complainant also did not mention anything of objection in her complaint. After minute observation, we find out that both the plots of the complainant as well as the plot of the person raised objection  mentioning in the W/V, are same i.e Number 6 , it is not clear that whether the matter of objection is doubtful or the plot Number is  simply a typing mistake.

Perused all the documents and other materials  on the record, our considered view is that the instant complaint is for obtaining electric connection which is an essential service and the OP also      failed to establish any documentary  justification against not giving the electric connection to the complainant. So, it is a clear deficiency in service on the part of the OP.  

Considering all the relevant documents and submission of both the parties, we are concluding our considered view that the complainant is entitled to get the electric connection in her premises, but without disturbing the land/premises of any other person.

Considering the above discussions we find that complaint be disposed of in favour of the complainant.

Hence,

                                           Ordered

that the Consumer Complaint No. 39/2015 be and the same is hereby allowed on contest against the OP without any order as to cost.

            The OP/Station Manager, Gorabazar CCC, WBSEDCL is directed to give electric connection to the premises of the complainant /Usha Begam, W/O Gulan Sk, Ajodhya Nagar, Berhampore, Murshidabad, keeping in mind that the line should not pass over the land/premises of other person, within 15 days from the date of this order, failing which the OP is to pay Rs.50 as fine for each day’s delay and the amount so accumulated shall be deposited in “Consumer Legal Aid Account”. The complainant is at liberty to put the order in execution as per law after the stipulated time period.                              

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.