FINAL ORDER
S. S. Ali, Member
The complainant, Sri Prasenjit Maiti, S/o Sri Krishna Prasad Maiti, of Vill&PO. Champi, P.S. Mahisadal, Dist. Purba Medinipur filed the instant case against the Station Manager, Mahisadal Group Electricity Supply and Divisional Manager, WBSEDCL, Haldia division. The complainant applied for new electric domestic service connection on 22/03/2012 vide application no. 20000436015 and made payment of Rs. 200/- on 22/03/2012 before the OP no. 1. Thereafter, on 04/04/2012 inspection was done by the OP no. 1 namely by Sri Bijoy Mondal who filed his report. On the basis of the said report on 25/04/2012, the complainant paid a sum of Rs. 552/- vide receipt no. 9718 and 9719 as security deposit and service connection charge through letter bearing Memo No. 200043615/APP-RECT/01 dated 22/03/2012 and Memo No. 2000436015/QUOT/03 respectively. In spite of making payment and filing of necessary documents till date the complainant did not get the service connection. He made repeated requests to the OP, but in vain, hence this case.
The OP no. 1 entered appearance and filed his written version as well as W.N.A. with documents. OP no. 1 stated in paragraph 17 of his written version that “…. (pole case) are to be effected by the assigned agency under BRGF scheme from RE Wings, WBSEDCL…. The petitioner has to wait till his turn comes under BRGF scheme as per direction of WBSEDCL” and that petitioner’s case is bad for defect of parties. The OP prayed for dismissal of the case.
The OP no. 2 did not appear to contest the case.
Points for discussion
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the OP?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief as prayed for?
Decisions with reasons
Point nos. 1 & 2:
Both the points are taken up together for convenience.
It can be said that as a consumer and as an applicant for new domestic connection the complainant had complied with all necessary formalities by paying the earnest money and service connection charge as required by the OP no. 1. The complainant repeatedly knocked the department for providing the electric connection, but the complainant did not get any positive reply from the OPs. It is true after submitting required money for new domestic electric connection, the complainant did not provide further application to OP no. 1 and OP no. 2 for reminding the said department about the said connection. Though, it is the immediate duty and obligation of the OP no. 1 and OP no. 2 to provide the new domestic electric connection after receiving the required money and to furnish an intimation regarding the cause of delay in giving the new electric connection to the complainant, who was the applicant for new electric domestic service connection. But the OPs failed to do so. It is the duty of OP to give electric service connection after receiving the earnest money, service charges etc. but from 22/03/2012 to 01/11/2012 OPs did not take any initiative to effect any service connection to the house of the complainant. It is the responsibility of the OPs that if there is any departmental obligation in delaying in providing the new electric connection the particular reason of such delay should be intimated to the complainant as the complainant being an applicant and consumer had already submitted required money to OPs. Evidently as a consumer, complainant has done his job perfectly and legally but OPs failed to do his/their duty. So, we find that there is deficiency in service on the part of the Ops in discharging their duties.
The complainant filed the money receipts and other relevant documents in support of his case. To counter the same, OP no. 1 filed an office order no. 016 which was received by their office on 01/11/2012. The OP highlighted paragraph 4 and 5 of the said order dt. 01/11/2012. We heard the submission of both the parties and also perused the documents filed by the complainant and the OP no. 1. It is admitted by the OP no. 1 that the complainant applied for and paid the requisite fees for new domestic service connection. The OP no. 1 after appearing in this case comes up with the plea as stated in his W.V. and WNA that they received an order in the month of November 2012 for which they are unable to effect service connection i.e. after a lapse of 6 months from the date on which complainant made his application. It was paramount duty of OP no. 1 to inform the complainant of such order and their inability to provide service connection, but the Ops neither informed the complainant of such receipt of order by them nor took initiative to effect service connection prior to 01/11/2012. As such, negligence in discharging their duty has cropped up on the part of the OP and due to this negligence in giving service the complainant has suffered for having no electricity which is an essential commodity to live life. The complainant also faced financial loss in respect of deposited money for a long period of time from 22/03/2012 till today as because he is a cultivator and his hard earned money has not been used for the proper reason.
Both the points are discussed and we come to this opinion that it is the internal matter of the Electricity Board which has to be dealt by them and it is not the responsibility of the complainant consumer to suffer due to inefficiency of the OPs by sitting inactive from 22/03/2012 to 01/11/2012 and thereafter the Ops also showed their inefficiency in discharging their duty by not providing service connection. Therefore, the OPs are directed to effect service connection to the complainant within 40 days from the date of passing of this order and pay litigation cost of Rs. 1,000/- i.d. the OPs shall be jointly and severally liable to pay fine @ Rs. 100/- per diem till service connection is effected to the premises of the complainant from the date of communication of passing of this order.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
that the instant C. Case no. 67/2013 be and the same is allowed on contest against OP no. 1 and ex-parte against OP no. 2. OPs are directed to effect service connection to the premises of the complainant within 40 days from this day and pay litigation cost Rs. 1,000/- to the complainant failing which Ops shall be jointly and severally liable to pay fine @ Rs. 100/- per diem from this day till connection is given to the premises of the complainant. The complainant shall have the liberty to execute the order if the OPs fail to comply with the order from the date of communication of the said order.
