DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 0144
C.C. CASE NO. 27_ OF ___2016
DATE OF FILING : 1.4.2016 DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT: 03.01/2018
Present : President : Ananta Kumar Kapri
Member(s) : Subrata Sarker
COMPLAINANT : Lalmohan Bayen, s/o late Birendranath Bayen of Village-Dakshin Bijoynagar, P.S Joynagar, Dist. South 24-Parganas.
-VERSUS -
O.P/O.Ps : 1. Station Manager, Joynagore Group Electric Supply, W.B.S.E.D.C.Ltd. Joynagore, P.S Joynagore, , Dist. South 24-Parganas, Pin-
2. Smt. Basumati Bayen,w/o late Harendra Nath Bayen.
3. Santanu Bayen, son of late Harendra Nath Bayen
4. Atanu Bayen, son of late Harendra Nath Bayen
5. Chandan Kumar Bayen, son of late Amulya Bayen
All of Village-Dakshin Bijoynagar, P.S Joynagore, P.O Dakshin Bijoynagar, Pin-743338, Dist. South 24-Parganas.
_______________________________________________________________________
J U D G E M E N T
Sri Ananta Kumar Kapri, President
This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the C.P Act, 1986 by the complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.P-1.
The facts leading to the filing of the instant complaint may be epitomized as follows:
The complainant wanted to take a new electric connection from the O.P-1 and ,therefore, he deposited security money etc. for the purpose of taking such connection from the O.P-1.He had to visit to the office of the O.P-1 several times and lastly he visited on 9.5.2016 and requested the O.P-1 to give new connection to his premises. But O.P-1 maintained a silence and did not take any step to give such connection to the complainant. The complainant has, therefore, come up before this Forum with filing of the instant case ,praying for issuing a direction to O.P-1 to give electric connection to his house and also to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/-as compensation for mental agony and harassment of him.
Hence arises the instant case.
The O.P-1 has been contesting the case by filing written statement ,wherein it is contended inter alia that the O.P-1 was always ready to give the new connection to the complainant, but the complainant failed to make arrangement for free way leave or to provide any alternative route, so that the electric line can be drawn to his premises. It is further averred by the O.P-1 that the O.P nos. 2 to 5 raised strong objection against the electric line being drawn to the house of the complainant over their land and , therefore, it was never possible for the O.P-1 to give electric connection to the complainant. According to the O.P-1, there was no negligence on the aprt of the O.P-1 and ,therefore, the complaint lodged against the O.P-1 should be dismissed in lemini.
The O.P nos. 2 to 5 have also filed a written statement contesting inter alia therein that there is a boundary dispute pending between the complainant and them . They are the co-owners of the complainant upon the land on which is situated the house of the complainant and that the boundary dispute between the complainant and them can only be determined by the Civil Court. This Forum does not have any jurisdiction to go through the boundary dispute between the parties and, therefore, the complaint should also be dismissed in lemini with cost.
Upon the averment of the parties, the following issues are formulated for consideration:-
ISSUES
- Is the case maintainable against the O.P-1?
- Is the case maintainable against O.P nos. 2 to 5 ?
- Are the O.Ps guilty of deficiency in service?
- Is the complainant entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for ?
Evidence of the Parties :-
The complainant has filed Affidavit-In-Chief along with documents, which are kept in the record. On the other hand, the O.Ps i.e O.P-1 on one hand and O.P nos. 2 to 5 on the other, have also filed separate Affidavits-In-chief.
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point nos. 1 and 2 :-
Perused the brief notes of written argument, the affidavits-in-chief filed by the parties and also the documents kept in the record.
Considered all these.
In the instant case , it is found that the complainant has complied with all the formalities required for taking a new electric connection to his house. He has deposited the security money and has also made payment of charges to O.P-1 i.e the Electricity Department. Thus , the complainant has fulfilled all the formalities required for taking a new electric connection , which is not disputed by the O.P-1. From this fact it can be unhesitatingly stated that the complainant is a consumer and the O.P-1 i.e the Electricity Department is service provider. So, the instant complaint under section 12 of the C.P Act, 1986 appears to be amply maintainable against O.P-1.
But the case is not the same with O.P nos. 2 to 5. The O.P nos. 2 to 5 are co-owners of the complainant. They have raised objection to the taking of new electric connection to the house of the complainant. Be that as it may, they are in no way service provider of the complainant and complainant is also in no way a consumer of O.P nos. 2 to 5. So, the complaint against O.P nos. 2 to 5 is not maintainable.
Both the issues are thus answered accordingly.
Point nos. 3 and 4 :-
Now to see whether the complainant is entitled to take the new electric connection from the O.P-1 i.e the concerned Electricity Department.
The O.P-1 made inspection to the house of the complainant and thereafter complainant deposited the security amount and also made payment of charges to the O.P-1 for taking new connection to his premises. It is the case of the O.P-1 that the Electricity Department could not gratify the complainant by giving a new connection to him for the reason that the O.P nos. 2 to 5 raised serious objection to draw such line to the house of the complainant. It is true that O.P-1 lodged a diary before the concerned Police Station i.e Joynagar P.S on 9.5.2016 , when they were confronted by the O.P nos. 2 to 5 in their process of drawing the electric line to the house of the complainant. Mere lodging a diary before the concerned P.S does not absolve the O.P-1 of their obligation. O.P-1 should have taken a fruitful step, so that the electric line could have been drawn to the house of the complainant.
It is found that the O.P nos. 2 to 5 have stood in the way of giving electric connection to the house of the complainant for sheer grudge and enmity, but no one can deprive any other person of his legitimate right when he is actually entitled to. O.P-1 should have filed an application before the police seeking police protection for drawing the electric connection to the house of the complainant. But they have not done so and the indolent attitude on the part of the O.P-1 is considered to be a deficiency in service ,for which they will have to pay compensation to the complainant for mental agony and harassment .
In the result, the complaint succeeds against O.P-1 only.
Hence,
ORDERED
That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest against O.P-1 with cost of Rs.1000/- and dismissed on contest against O.P nos. 2 to 5 without cost.
The O.P-1 is directed to give new electric connection to the house of the complainant within a month of this order and also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- towards compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant along with a cost of Rs.1000/- as pointed out above within a month from the date of this order, failing which the compensation amount will bear interest @10% p.a till full realization.
At the same time , it is made clear that O.P-1 may take police protection from the concerned Police Station whenever they will face any kind of hindrance or objection from any corner, not to speak of O.P nos. 2 to 5 and the concerned Police of Joynagar P.S shall extend every kind of help to O.P-1 for the purpose whenever sought for by the O.P-1.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the I.C , Joynagar P.S for his information and taking necessary action whenever they are approached by O.P-1.
Let a free copy of this order be given to the parties concerned at once.
Dictated and corrected by me
President
We / I agree.
Member
The judgment in separate sheet is ready and is delivered in open Forum. As it is ,
ORDERED
That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest against O.P-1 with cost of Rs.1000/- and dismissed on contest against O.P nos. 2 to 5 without cost.
The O.P-1 is directed to give new electric connection to the house of the complainant within a month of this order and also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- towards compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant along with a cost of Rs.1000/- as pointed out above within a month from the date of this order, failing which the compensation amount will bear interest @10% p.a till full realization.
At the same time , it is made clear that O.P-1 may take police protection from the concerned Police Station whenever they will face any kind of hindrance or objection from any corner, not to speak of O.P nos. 2 to 5 and the concerned Police of Joynagar P.S shall extend every kind of help to O.P-1 for the purpose whenever sought for by the O.P-1.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the I.C , Joynagar P.S for his information and taking necessary action whenever they are approached by O.P-1.
Let a free copy of this order be given to the parties concerned at once.
Member President
