Statement of Facts of the case is as follows:-
The complainant as an unemployed youth for his livelihood decided to start a welding shop and for this purpose he obtained a SSI Registration Certificate from Competent authority (District Industrial Centre, Purulia) and also NOC from pollution control board to run the welding shop. He also received consent from Pradhan, Belma Gram Panchayet to run the said business. The copies of those are marked as Annex. (A1 and A3). There after on 3/12/12 he applied for electric connection to O.P. and deposited earnest money of Rs. 2,000/- in favour of O.P. on proper receipt. There after the O.P. asked the complainant to submit legal document as one Rahamagul Ansary raised objection against the application of the complainant. On 16/1/2013 the complainant submitted documents in support of the ownership of the premises. That on 6/2/13 the O.P. issued a quotation for payment of service connection charge and security deposit which was deposited by the complainant on 13/2/13 on proper receipt. The photocopies of those are marked as Annex A (4 to 8). The premises where the electric connection is to be provided belongs to the father of the complainant who gave NOC in favour of the complainant. One Umed Ansary filed a suit (TS No. 19/12) against the father of the complainant and others before the Ld Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Purulia which has been dismissed by LD court on 18/9/2013 and the complainant by a letter on 24/1/2014 informed the fate of that case to the O.P. The photocopy of letter dated 24/1/14 marked as (A-9). That the complainant through his letter 28/2/14 submitted the copy of judgment passed in TS No. 19/12 to the O.P. The complainant fulfilled all the formalities and quaries of the O.P but the O.P. did not provide electric connection to the premises of the complainant. Finding no other alternative the complainant filed the present case for giving direction to O.P. to provide electric connection in his welding shop etc.
The O.P. has contested the case by filing written version denying all the allegation made in the complainant. Defence in short is that the case is not maintainable and the complainant is not a consumer under the act. That the complainant is not the owner of the land and the land has not been recorded in the name of the complainant and the partition suit (TS No. 19/12) is pending etc. Accordingly, the O.P. prays for dismissal of the case.
Point for consideration:
- Whether he is consumer or not?
- Whether he is entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
Decision with reason:
We have carefully perused the complaint and W/V and the documents filed by the parties. Considered. It is admitted that the complainant complied all the formalities by depositing earnest money of Rs. 2,000/- and the service connection charge and security deposit of Rs. 12,813/- only and also the NOC from the owner of the land and NOC of the pollution control board and Registration Certificate of District Industries Center, Purulia and consent letter from concerned Gram Pradhan to run the said business as per rule. It is admitted that the title suit 19/12 filed by one Umed Ansary before Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Purulia has been dismissed on contest on 9/9/13. The Ld Counsel of the complainant has drawn our attention to the fact that though appeal has been filed against the said order but there is no stay order. It is admitted that O.P. gave electric connection to the southern side of the suit premises to one Hamid Ansary vide service connection No. 200121005 on 17/5/14. Though O.P. in the written version stated that there is problem of way leave regarding electric connection from the premises of the complainant yet the statement made in para 11 of the complaint regarding way leave in the suit premises which is situated to the east of the Purulia-Barakar Road remained unchallenged. It appears that this is deficiency in service on the part of the O.P is there by not giving electric connection to the premises of the complainant and they took time without any just cause. These points are disposed of accordingly.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case we are of opinion that the complainant is entitled to get relief regarding electric connection as prayed for without any further delay as per way leave shown and identified by the complainant and if any objection./obstruction comes in the way from any quarter the O.P. should not hesitate to take further necessary step by taking assistance from local administration and police to fulfill their statutory obligation. For negligence and harassment the complainant should get compensation of Rs. 1,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 1,000/- respectively. Hence,
ORDERED
That the consumer complainant 27 of 2014 be and the same is allowed on contest against O.P.
That O.P. is directed to provide electric connection immediately but not later then one month from the date of this order at the business premises of the complainant as per way leave to be shown and identified by the complainant and if any objection/obstruction comes in the way from any quarter the O.,P. should not hasitate to take further necessary step by taking assistance from local administration and police to fulfill their statutory obligation. For negligence and harassment the O.P. is directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 1,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 1,000/- within one month from the date of order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to execute the order against the O.P. in accordance with the provision of law.
Let a copy of this judgement be supplied to the parties free of charge.
