Complainant’s case, in brief, is that the complainant being one of the co-sharers of Plot no. 699 under Mouza Bordangi, Kolaghat P.S. applied before the OP no. 1 for electric service connection in his house on 09-02-2010. He deposited the quotation money of Rs. 650/- against Money Receipt being no. 6767441 dt. 20.08.2010. On request, Meter being no. D-26996 (Receipt no. 5777 dt. 20-08-2010) was installed in the premises of the complainant on the same day. However, the said meter was subsequently removed by the OP no. 1 without assigning any reason whatsoever. After that, the complainant made several requests to the OP no. 1 – both verbally as well as in writing, but the OP no. 1 did not take any step to give such service connection in his house. Hence, the instant case.
OP no. 1, after entering his appearance before this forum has vehemently disputed the contention as made in the complaint by filing a written version wherein all the material allegations made against OP no. 1 have been denied.
Points for consideration
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of OP no. 1 with regard to effecting electric connection to complainant’s house, as alleged?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief as sought for?
Decisions with reasons
Point no. 1 & 2:
Both these points are taken up together for the brevity of discussion.
Ld. advocate on behalf of the complainant contended that after deposit of requisite money on the basis of quotation issued by the OP no. 1 in favour of the complainant, the OP no. 1 installed a meter being no. D-26996 (Receipt no. 5777 dt. 20-08-2010) in the house of the complainant. However, afterwards OP no. 1 removed the said meter from his residence without citing any reason behind such move. Thereafter, in spite of several requests made by the complainant, OP no. 1 did nothing to effect electric connection to his residential house.
The ld. advocate appearing on behalf of OP no. 1 raised strong objection against the argument as advanced on behalf of the complainant. It is submitted by the ld. advocate on behalf of the OP no. 1 that there is no negligence on the part of the OP no. 1 because his men went to the house of the complainant for giving electric connection, but due to strong resistance from the mother and brother of the complainant, they could not effect such connection. Ld. advocate on behalf of the OP no. 1 has also contended, by drawing our attention to the photocopy of order in respect of an application u/s 144 of CrPC filed by the complainant that, there was stiff resistance from the relatives of the complainant for which, they could not effect such connection.
We have carefully gone through the instant application, written version and the photocopy of documents filed by the parties.
Undisputedly, the complainant applied for effecting electric connection in his house from the OP no. 1 for which he deposited the required money as per quotation issued by the OP no. 1. By drawing the attention of this forum to the order of ld. Executive Magistrate, Tamluk, Purba Medinipur dt. 13.04.2011, ld. Advocate for the OP contended that it is evident from the said order that there is a family dispute between the complainant and his relatives and owing to their strong resistance they could not effect such connection.
Bluntly speaking, this contention of the OP is totally misleading. Instead of smelling rat in the order of ld. Executive Magistrate, Tamluk, Purba Medinipur, had they made the slightest endeavour to read between the lines of said order, they would have realised that the same did not intend at creating obstruction rather it sought to facilitate effecting electric service connection to the premises of the complainant by directing OC, Kolaghat P.S. to see that OP Member of said case do not cause any disturbance to the petitioner while the allegation against the OP Member in the said application u/s 144(2) CrPC was that OP Member forcibly and illegally tried to obstruct installation of electric meter over the suit land of the petitioner. However, thanks to the lackadaisical approach of the OP, the complainant has not got the electric service connection even after 1-½ year of deposit of security deposit and compliance of necessary formalities notwithstanding Sec. 43(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003 casts duty upon the distribution licensee to provide electricity within one month after receipt of application requiring such supply.
The circumstances, as aforesaid, suggest that there is palpable deficiency in service on the part of OP no. 1 for not giving electric connection/non-installation of fresh meter to the house in question of the complainant. In our considered view, therefore, the complainant is entitled to get order with regard to direction upon the OP for effecting service connection in the house in question of the complainant and cost.
These points are thus disposed of in favour of the complainant.
Accordingly, it is,
Ordered
that the instant complaint case be and the same is allowed in part with cost Rs. 500/- within 30 days from this day being payable by OP no. 1 to the complainant with further direction to effect electric service connection to the premises of the complainant with police help, if necessary within 30 days from the date of communication of this order failing which the complainant shall have the liberty to execute the order in accordance with law.
In case OP fails to comply with the order within stipulated period, the OP no. 1 will be liable to pay fine @Rs.50/- per dien from this day till compliance of the order.
Dictated and corrected
by me
President
__________________
A.K. Bhattacharyya
President
_________________
S. S. Ali
Member