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

             CASE No.  CC/76/2016.

 Date of Filing:                    Date of Admission:                Date of Disposal:

     10.05.16                                      23.05.16                             14.01.2020

Complainant: Takun Sk

S/O- Late Chotu Sk,

Vill- Polladanga Para,

PO- Velanagar Muktarpur,

 PS- Nawda,  Dist. Murshidabad

Pin- 742121

-Vs-

Opposite Party: Station Manager, W.B.S.E.D.C.L,

 Nawda CCC

PO- Velanagar Mukarpur,

PS- Nawda,

Pin- 742121

Agent/Advocate for the Complainant : Sri. Surojit Banerjee.

Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party         : Sri. Siddhartha Sankar Dhar.

                       Present:   Sri Asish  Kumar Senapati………………….......President.                              

                                          Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………..Member.

FINAL ORDER

Asish Kumar Senapati, Presiding Member.

            One Takun Sk. (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against Station Manager, WBSEDCL, Nawda CCC (here in after referred to as the OP) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.

The sum and substance of the complaint case is as follows:-

            The Complainant applied for a new electric connection and deposited a sum of Rs.747/- on 28.11.15. The Complainant also spent Rs.3,000/- for wiring of his house to effect the electrification but the OP did not give electric connection which is nothing but deficiency in service. Hence, the Complainant has filed the case praying for a direction upon the OP to give electric connection at the dwelling house of the Complainant.

               The OP contested the case by filing written version on 01.08.16 contending that the case is not maintainable. It is the specific case of the OP that on receipt of security deposit and service connection charge, the workers of the OP went to the house of the Complainant in order to draw service line on 22.12.15 but the service connection could not be effected due to objection raises by one Monirujjaman Maliyhta. Thereafter, the OP received an  order from the SDEM ( S) Berhampore on 11.02.16 arising out of case No. 594 of 2016 with a direction to the OC, Nawda P.S. and the S.M. Amtala CCC to take necessary action to comply the order dated 11.02.16 Accordingly, the S.M. of Amtala issued a letter dated 07.04.16 to the OC, Nawda P.S. with a request to provide police help  and  the date of execution of such work was fixed on 12.04.16. But the Executive Magistrate dropped the case on 11.04.16. So, the installation of electricity service could not be effected. The OP has asserted that Monirujjaman Maliyhta is a necessary party and the OP has no deficiency in service.

               One Monirujjaman Maliyhta filed a petition dated 03.10.16 praying for adding him as OP and the petition was allowed on 07.05.18 and Monirujjaman Maliyhta was added as OP No.2. But subsequently, the Monirujjaman Maliyhta did not file any written version. The said Monirujjaman Maliyhta filed xerox  copy of certified copy of decree of partition suit being No. 48 of 1998 in connection with plot Nos. 4548 of Mouza Chandkathi.

               As the OP No.2 did not file written version, the case is heard ex-parte against the OP No.2.

               On the basis of the above version the following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case :

Points for consideration

1. Isthe Complainant a consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?

2. Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?

3. Has the OP any deficiency in service, as alleged?

4. Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?

Point no.1

The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the Complainant is a consumer as he hired services of the OPs for consideration for getting electric connection.

The Ld. Advocate for the OPs has not argued on that point.

On going through the complaint, written version and other materials on record and on a careful consideration over the submission of both sides, we find that the Complainant is a consumer in terms of section 2 (I )(d) (ii) of the C.P.Act, 1986.

Point No.2

            The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the cause of action of this case arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.

On a careful consideration over the materials on record, we find that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and this Forum has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

Point Nos.3&4

            The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the Complainant paid Rs.747/- for installation of new electric connection at his residence and the OP No.1  did not effect the electricity connection which is nothing but deficiency in service. He argues that the OP No.1 may be directed to effect the new electricity connection immediately and to pay compensation to the Complainant.

            In reply, the Ld. Advocate for the OP No.1 submits that the OP No.1 had/ has no objection to give electric connection to the Complainant but it could not be effected due to objection raised by the OP No.2. It is contended that the Complainant may be directed to obtain way leave from the OP No.2 so that the OP No.1 may affect electricity connection without any objection. He submits that the OP No.1 has no deficiency in service.

      The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the OP No.1 may be directed to effect the electricity connection by taking police help, if necessary, as the Complainant has every right to get electricity at his own home.

            Perused the written complaint, written version and the documents filed by the OP No.2 and the Complainant. The Complainant has not filed any chit of paper to establish that he has any right over plot No. 4551, 4548 of Mouza Chandkali as mentioned in his written complaint. It appears from the decree of partition suit being No. 48 of 1998 that one Monirujjaman Maliyhta and Mosaraf Maliyhta got the decree against Fudan Bibi and 21 Others in connection with plot No. 4548, area 10 decimal of Mouza Chandkathi. The Complainant or his father Chotu Sekh is not a party to the said partition suit. It appears from the xerox copy of the application filed by the Complainant U/S 144 (2) Cr.P.C. that he prayed for an order in connection with plot Nos. 4548 and 4551 measuring 3 decimals each of Mouza Chandkathi but in the written complaint, the Complainant has stated that his dwelling house is on plot Nos. 4551 and 4548 of Mouza Chandkhali.

            On a careful consideration, we find that the Complainant has suppressed the fact that the OP No. 1 went to his dwelling house for effecting electricity connection on 22.12.15 and the Complainant also filed petition under section 144(2) CRPC against the OP No.2 on 19.02.2016.

            Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the OP No.1 has deficiency in service as he neither refund the security deposit/service connection charge nor informed the reason for non installation of electricity connection to the complainant.  The Complainant has every right to get electricity connection at his residence. The OP No.2 has filed certified copy of decree of partition suit being No. 48 of 1998 to establish that the OP No.2 has got a decree of partition in respect of plot No. 4548 of Mouza Chandkathi measuring area 10 decimals.

            The OP No.1  may be directed to effect electricity connection at the residence of the complainant  in plot No. 4551 without installing any electric line over plot No. 4548 of Mouza Chandkhali and in case of any objection raised by anyone, the Complainant is liable to submit valid document of his ownership/possession over plot No. 4551 or to submit way leave from the persons who raises/raise objection for installation of electricity in plot No. 4551.

Reasons for delay

The Case was filed on 10.05.16 and admitted on 23.05.16 . This Forum tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act,1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day order.

Fees paid are correct.

In the result, the Complainant Case succeeds in part. Hence, it is

                                      ORDERED

that the Consumer Complaint Case No. CC/76/2016 be and the same is hereby allowed in part on contest against the OP without cost and dismissed exparte against the O.P. No.2 without cost.

            The OP No.1 is directed to effect electricity connection at the residence of the complainant in plot No. 4551 without installing any electric line over plot No. 4548 of Mouza Chandkathi and in case of any objection raised by anyone, the Complainant is liable to submit valid document of his ownership/possession over plot No. 4551 or to submit way leave from the persons who raises/raise objection for installation of electricity in plot No. 4551.

             Let plain copy of this order  be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand  /by post under proper acknowledgment  as per rules, for information and necessary action.

The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:

    confonet.nic.in

Dictated & corrected by me.

President

  Member                                                                                                    President.