West Bengal

Birbhum

CC/14/15

Balaram Pal, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Station Manager, W.B.S.E.D.C.L, - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjit Acharya

10 Dec 2014

ORDER

In a nutshell, the complainants case is that Balaram Pal, the complainant, is a marginal peasant and applied for electric service connection to his submersible pump for betterment of irrigation. For this purpose, the complainant deposited earnest money of Rs. 200 before Station Manager, WBSEDCL, Mollarpur, Birbhum (the O.P). Subsequently, the O.P made spot enquiry and issued quotation vide Memo No. Sm/mLP/1014 dated 17.01.2011.in the name of the complainant. Accordingly, the complainant deposited the quotation amount of Rs. 50278 vide money receipt Sl. No. D/7328904 and D/7328905 on 21.01.2011.before the office of the O.P. But for a long time there is no action on the part of the O.P to effect that service connection and lastly the complainant requested the O.P. on the last part of the Auguest, 2013. Inspite of several requests the O.P remains ideal and inactive. Hence, this case.

The complainant has prayed for reliefs as per complaint.

The O.P has contested the case by filing written version wherein the O.P has made evasive denial of all the averments and allegations made in the petition of complaint. The O.P has stated that the complainant’s connection work is pending due to way leave problem and non-construction of meter room with proper wiring installation and the O.P has intimated complainant by a letter on 02.12.2013 and requested to produce no objection certificate from the owner of the land. But the complainant has failed to produce the same till today. The O.P has also submitted that there is no negligence and deficiency in service on the part of them and the case would be dismissed with cost.

Both the complainant and O.P did not adduce any oral evidence. The complainant has filed some relevant documents. Ld. Lawyer of both parties have filed written arguments.

On appreciation of the pleadings of the both sides, evidence and the documents brought on record following points are pertinent for discussion to determine the case.

POINTS FOR DETERMIATION

1. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P?
2. Is the complainant entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for?

DECISION WITH REASONS

Point No.s i) & ii ):  Both the points are interrelated to each other and discussed together for convenience and brevity.

Evidently, it is gathered from the record that the O.P has received the quotation amount from the complainant. Now, the submission of the complainant is that in spite of complying all formalities the O.P has refused to effect the service connection with his submersible pump. In reply the O.P has submitted that the service connection work of the complainant is lying pending due to way leave problem and incompletion of meter room. On scrutiny of the record we find that the quotation paper supplied by the O.P. does not indicate requirement of any way leave permission for effecting the service connection. Even no report is filed to show that the O.P. has to face hindrance to effect service connection for want of way leave permission. Hence the plea of the O.P. that the complainant did not supply no objection certificate from the land owner over which the electric wire will go and the O.P has faced strong objection from the land owner at the time of erection of PCC polls and installation of new transformer is not justified and acceptable. The O.P. also has mentioned in the written version and in the written arguments that a written intimation regarding the way leave problem has been sent to the complainant on 02.12.2013.but did not file any such document before the Forum. Moreover on careful perusal of the documents our observation is that according to the money receipts submitted by the complainant the date of submission of quotation amount is 21.01.2011.whereas the same is 07.03.2012.as per the written version of the O.P. In this regard, reliance is placed on the documents submitted by the complainant and the date mentioned in written version of the O.P.  is not true.  So, we have no other option than to hold that the plea of the O.P. is without justification and basis. Thus we are unable to accept the plea of the O.P.s

            However, since the O.P has issued quotation after inspection and has received the quotational amount from the complainant, he is bound to give electric connection to the submersible pump of the complainant.

Now regarding the prayer for compensation, we think there is no tangible evidence to assess the loss of complainant. So, we are unable to give any decision on that score. Therefore, the case stands but in part.

Proper fees have been paid.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

that C.F case No. 15/2014 be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.P in part.

            The O.P is directed to effect service connection with the submersible pump of the complainant within one month from the date of this order. The O.P. shall also pay Rs.5000 as the litigation cost to the complainant within the above mentioned period, failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to execute this order as per Law and procedure. 

Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.

 

(Dr. S. Sikder  Member)       (Miss. R. Mukherjee Sr.Member)        (Abdul Quader  President)