DATE OF FILING : 20-07-2012.
DATE OF S/R : 10-08-2012.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 12-10-2012.
Sri Gopal Dandapath,
son of late Nakul Dandapath,
residing at village – Paschim Bauria, Mollapara,
District –Howrah,
PIN – 711307.----------------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT.
- Versus -
1. Station Manager,
Burikhali E.S. WBSEDCL,
Village & P.O. Burikhali, P.S. Bauria,
District – Howrah,
PIN – 711310.
2. The Chairman,
WBSEDCL, Bihyutbhawan, Salt Lake,
Kolkata.
3. Raju Dandapath,
son of Tapan Dandapath.
4. Gobinda Dandapath,
son of late Nakul Dandapath.
5. Purnandu Dandapath,
son of Anup Dandapath.
6. Sanjan Dandapath,
son of Tarapada Dandapath.
7. Nemai Dandapath,
son of late Bhusan Dandapath.
8. Mahando Dandapath,
son of late Krishnapada Dandapath.
9. Anup Dandapath,
son of late Sahadeb Dandapath.
10. Manorajan Dandapath,
son of late Bhusan Dandapath,
opposite party nos. 3 to 10 are residing
at Village – West Bauria, Mollapara, P.O. Chakkashi,
P.S. Bauria, District – Howrah,
PIN – 711307.----------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
President : Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.
Member : Shri P.K. Chatterjee.
Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
F I N A L O R D E R
1. The instant case was filed by complainant U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986,
as amended against the O.Ps. alleging deficiency in service U/S 2( 1 )( g ), 2( 1 )( o ) of the C.P. Act, 1986 wherein the complainant has prayed for passing necessary direction upon the O.P. nos. 1 & 2 i.e., WBSEDCL Authority for effecting new electric service connection at the complainant occupied portion in respect of dag no. 482/501, khatian no. 951/941 at village - Chakkashi, Bauria, Howrah, and to restrain o.p. nos. 3 to 10 from raising any obstruction against such new service connection.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is that the complainant applied before
the o.p. no. 1, WBSEDCL Authority for effecting new service connection to his occupied portion followed by depositing necessary service connection charges and security money but the same connection could not be effected due to objection raised by the o.p. nos. 3 to 10 in spite of good attempts made by the o.p. no. 1, WBSEDCL Authority. Finding no other alternative complainant filed this instant petition alleging deficiency in service on the part of the o.p. nos. 1 & 2.
3. The o.p. nos. 1 & 2 WBSEDCL Authority stated in their written version that the complainant paid service connection charges including security deposit on the dated 16-09-2011 and that to attempts were made for effecting new electric connection through separate meter and the job could not be completed for forcible and unauthorized objection raised at the site by o.p. nos. 3 to 10. They have no objection for effecting new service connection if other o.ps. are restrained.
4. The o.p. nos. 3 to 10 appeared and submit their written version separately which duly considered and recorded.
5. Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :
i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. ?
ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
6. Both the points are taken up together for consideration. It is admitted facts that the complainant deposited necessary quotational money for new service connection to the WBSEDCL Authority including observing all technical formalities. It appears that the o.p. no. 1 being a public utility concern is eager to cater the service connection to the intending consumer i.e., complainant. There is no deficiency in service on their part and nor did they commit any unfair trade practice. Their inability was due to the objection raised by the neighbouring co-sharers ( herein o.p. nos. 3 to 10 ). We have also considered the written version of the o.p. nos. 3 to 10 and the same cannot be sustained at the present situation on some fictitious ground considering electricity is a need based requirement of a civilized person and the same has been discussed / agreed on 25th October, 2009 in presence of Salisi Sava by the local people including o.ps.
7. Considering the above we have our considered opinion that o.p. no. 1 & 2, WBSEDCL Authority has no latches and deficiency in service for effecting the new service connection at the complainant premises and that to they are ready to complete the job if free access is available.
Therefore, we are of the view that this is a fit case where prayer of the complainant shall be allowed. Accordingly both the points are disposed of.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 65 of 2012 ( HDF 65 of 2012 ) be allowed on contest against o.p. nos. 1 & 2 and dismissed without cost against rest of the o.ps.
The O.P. nos. 1 & 2, WBSEDCL Authority, be directed to provide new electric connection to the complainant at the premises as mentioned in the schedule within 30 days from the date of this order.
The o.p. nos. 3 to 10 is hereby restrained from causing any disturbance during effecting new service connection.
In case of any illegal objection by any person complainant and o.p. nos. 1 & 2 WBSEDCL Authority shall approach to the local police station for help.
No order as to compensation.
The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.
