West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/119/2013

Sri Biman Kumar Nag - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

20 Jun 2014

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

Complaint case No.119/2013                                                         Date of disposal: 20/06/2014                               

 BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT :  Mr. Sujit Kumar Das.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mrs. Debi Sengupta.

                                                      MEMBER : 

    For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff : Mr.B. Ganguly, Advocate.

    For the Defendant/O.P.                               : Mr. S. Bhattacharya, Advocate.                                   

          

    Sri Biman Kumar Nag, S/o Late Gobardhan Nag of Kotwali Bazaar, P.O. & PS. Medinipur, Dist- Paschim Medinipur…………..complainant

                                                           Vs.

1. Station Manager. W.B.S.E.D.C.L., Keranitola, P.O. & P.S. Medinipur, Dist- Paschim Medinipur...……………Op.

          The case of the complainant Sri Biman Kumar Nag, in short, is that he has applied for new commercial connection and accordingly deposited security money to the Op but they did not install new connection for supply of electricity to the complainant. Being aggrieved, the complainant has come before us with the prayer for direction to the Op for installation of new connection with payment of litigation cost and damages.    

           The Op contested the case by filing written objection challenging that the case is not maintainable for want of cause of action and the same is barred by the provisions of Electricity Act on the ground that connection in the multistoried building can be done upon due arrangement was to be made by the developer of the said multistoried building or its owners.  In this connection, it is also stated by the Op that if the arrangement is done there is no impediments for providing new connection as prayed for the owner of the building, rather, raised objection to the Op while installation was being given effect to.  This aspect is also known to the complainant.  The Op, even if their letter under memo No.BR/12-13/N.S.C./770 dated 14/02/2013, has already made communication to the complainant.  Thus, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Op and as such the case should be dismissed with cost.  

          Upon the case of both parties the following issues are framed.

Contd………………P/2

 

 

- ( 2 ) -

Issues:

1. Whether the case is maintainable in its present from?
2. Whether the case is barred by operation of Electricity Act?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to gate relief as prayed for.?                                  

 

Decision with reasons

Issue Nos.1 to 3:

              All the issues are taken up together for discussion as those are interlinked each other for the purpose of arriving at a correct decision in the dispute.

              Ld. Advocate for the complainant made his argument that the complainant made necessary deposit in favour of the Op for getting new electricity connection but without any reasonable cause the Op did not give effect of the connection.  For not giving new electricity connection in favour of the complainant, the Op is liable for deficiency of service and as such necessary direction in terms of the prayer made in the petition of the complaint should be given by the Ld. Forum.

            Ld. Advocate for the Op made his reply that there is no reason for delaying new electricity connection to the complainant since necessary security deposit has been accepted by the Op.  While making installation of electricity connection, the Op met serious objection and resistance from the end of owners of the Mohul Housing Society stating that no commercial connection will be allowed in there domestic premises. The owner association also raised that in the deed of conveyance there is no common rights provided for the shop owners in the domestic premises.  If that be the condition exists in the matter of giving effect to the request of the complainant, it is not readily possible for giving connection by the op.  So, the Op is not liable for deficiency of service as alleged by the complainant.

            The case of both parties is carefully considered in the light of documentary evidence produced by the respective parties.  It appears that the documents so filed are not challenged by the parties vice versa.  It appears that the complainant has made deposit of security money by virtue of deed of conveyance.  The recital in the deed of conveyance goes to show that the Op is not prohibited for giving new connection to the complainant from the premises of G + IV storied building cum commercial “Mohul Apartment”.  In this connection, the documentary evidence produced by the Op shows that the owners of the said apartment raised objection to the Op in the matter of new connection.

            Under the facts and circumstances, as above we are in the opinion that it an exclusive dispute between the complainant and the apartment owners wherein it is not permissible for us to give specific direction in terms of the prayer of the complainant to the OP to see the interest of the

 

Contd………………P/3

 

 

 

- ( 3 ) -

 letter (complainant).  If we allow the prayer, there could be every chance to cause unlawful intrusion into the dispute by the Op.  Thus, there is no ground against the allegation of deficiency of service against the Op.

            In view of the discussion made herein above, it is held and decided that the case based on the allegation of deficiency of service against the OP has not been successfully established.  All the issues are disposed of against the complainant. As a result, the case should fail.   

               Hence,

                           It is Ordered,    

                                                    that the case be and the same is dismissed  on contest  without cost.

Dic. & Corrected by me

              

         President                                Member              Member                                  President

                                                                                                                              District Forum

                                                                                                                          Paschim Medinipur.