JUDGEMENT.
DATED :10-02-2015.
It is a complaint case for deficiency of service.
The case of the Complainant, in short, is this that he applied for new electric connection at his residence for purely domestic purpose and paid Rs.5/- as Application Fees on 19-07-2012. On 12-12-2012 as per direction of the O.P. he paid Rs.200/- for Earnest Money. After investigation the O.P. issued one quotation on 26-04-2013 demanding Rs.200/- and Rs.350/- for Service Connection and Security Deposit and on 15-05-2013 the Complainant deposited full amount as directed by the O.P. After that the Complainant requested the O.P. for giving new connection but after causing delay of 10-months the O.P. installed new electric connection on 28-03-2014 and issued one yellow card violating the provisions of section 43 (1) of the electricity act by which the O.P. is duty bound to supply electricity within one month after receipt of the application requiring such supply. Section 43(3) of the said act provides that if the distribution licensee fails to supply electricity within the specified period of sub-section 1, he shall be liable to pay penalty which may extend to Rs.1,000/- for each day of fault. In this instant case the O.P. supplied electric connection after causing delay of 10-months intentionally violating the said provisions which tantamounts to deficiency in service. Hence, this case praying for direction upon the O.P. to pay Rs.70,000/- as penalty for violating section 43(1) and 43(3) of the electricity act, Compensation and litigation cost.
Page 1 / 3.
Consumer Complaint No.115 of 2014.
The O.P. has contested this case by filing written version denying allegation of the Complainant contending inter alia that since 15-05-2013 or even from 29-03-2014 to the date of filing the present case, the Complainant has not submitted his grievance in writing. So, the case is liable to be dismissed.
On the basis of pleadings of both the parties now the question is as to whether the Complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for.
Decision with reasons.
The Ld. Lawyer for the Complainant has not submitted any written notes of argument but has made same submissions as stated in the complaint.
The Ld. Lawyer for the O.P. has filed a written notes of argument taking the same plea as stated in the written version.
Considering the pleadings of both the parties and the documents on record it is an admitted fact that the Complainant deposited all the amount as required by the O.P. on 15-05-2013 for getting new electric connection at his premises. There is no denial to the allegations that the O.P. installed new connection at the premises of the Complainant on 28-03-2014 causing delay of 10-months. The fact remains that there is no reasonable explaination on behalf of the O.P. to cause delay for 10-months regarding giving new supply of electricity to the premises of the Complainant. So, the said act of the O.P. should be treated as deficiency of service.
In the above circumstances, we find that for causing intentional delay of 10-months without any reasonable explanation on behalf of the O.P., it will meet the ends of justice if the O.P. is directed to pay a lump sum of Rs.4,000/- to the Complainant as Compensation. Accordingly, this case should be allowed.
In the circumstances the above point is answered in favour of the Complainant.
In the result the complaint succeeds.
Hence, it is
Ordered
That the Complaint Case no.115 of 2014 is allowed on contest against the O.P. but without any cost.
That the Complainant is entitled to get Rs.4,000/- as Compensation for his mental agony from the O.P.
Page 2 / 3.
Consumer Complaint No.115 of 2014.
That the O.P. is directed to pay Rs.4,000/- to the Complainant within two months from the date of this Judgement failing which an interest @ 9% p.a. will be accrued on the said amount from the date of this Judgement till realization.
Let a copy of this Judgement be supplied to the parties free of cost as per Rule.
(A. AGNIHOTRI) (L. N. CHATTOPADHYAY) (Y. HALDER)
Ld. Member Ld. Member Ld. President
Page 3 / 3.
