Smt. Bandana Roy, President
The case of the complainant, in short, is that the complainant is the owner of schedule property which is physically Bastu land. The complainant has right title interest and possessor of the land and living with his family without any disturbance. The complainant possessed the landed property by amicable settlement with co-sharer and paid rent to the authority regularly. The complainant, since long, felt difficulties to maintain his life without electrification in his said house and hence applied before the OP for electric connection to his house being application no. 2001174199 and also comply with other formalities of the OP. That after receipt of the said application the OP arranged an inspection to the house of the complainant and the OP was satisfied and agreed to give new connection the house of the complainant. The OP, thereafter, issued quotation bearing no. 2001174199/Quot/03 dtd. 28.04.2014 to the complainant for new service connection. The complainant as per quotation deposited Rs.547/- for security deposit and Rs.400/- for service connection charge on 29.04.2014 and got two money receipt bearing no. 18840 and 18839 for the same. The OP, thereafter, installed meter bearing no. B-3098676 for new service connection to the complainant’s house and also attached a yellow card for noting the reading of unit. The complainant also completed the wiring works to his house.
However, after installation of the meter, the OP without any prior information/intimation or assigning any sufficient reason suddenly disconnected the electric connection of the complainant. The complainant several times met the OP but to no good. The OP raised that one title suit bearing no. TS-261/10 has been pending in the Court of Ld. Civil Judge (J.D.) Haldia Court in connection with the plot no. 928, 929 at Mouza-Sarberia under P.S.- Mahisadal. The complainant claims that the information was wrong and he submitted a searching slip which was obtained from Ld. Court dtd. 01.09.2014 and sent a letter through Ld. Advocate, Alok Kumar De, dtd. 28.08.2014 to the OP and also to Superintendent WBSEDCL at Tamluk. The complainant also applied before the CA&FBP, Purba Medinipur on 08.01.2016 for redressal of the said matter but in vain. Finding no other alternative complainant filed the instant case.
The OP contested the case by filing W/V and denied all the material allegations of the complainant. The OP, interalia, stated that as it is the case of new service connection with pole under BRGF scheme, the work of electrification under the BRGF scheme was carried out by the L&T Construction under the supervision of Project Manager, Rural Electrification Wings, WBSEDCL, Purba Medinipur. As per workorder, personnel of L&T Construction went to the premise of the complainant and PCC pole was erected and service cable was drawn from the PCC pole. They also installed a meter on 04.05.2014 in the premise of the complainant despite strong objection raised by Smt. Bela Chakroborty, Smt. Rekha Chakroborty and others. But, according to the report of the Project Mananger, RE Wings, Purba Medinipur, on the very next day the objectioners removed the service connection cable forcefully. The said agency went several times to restore the power supply but failed due to strong physical resistance of the objectioners, however, the energy meter is still installed in the premise of the complainant. The OP claimed that several attempts were made by the enlisted agency of WBSEDCL as well as technical staff of Mahisadal CCC to effect the service connection but every time failed due to strong physical resistance of the objectioners. Thereafter, the Project Manager issued a letter vide memo no. CMD/N-10/129/12A/1356 dtd. 26.07.2014 to the complainant expressing their inability to effect the service connection till disposal of the pending Court case or receipt of specific order from the Court regarding the issue. The OP also claimed that they are not in any way responsible for the delay in connection and prays for dismissal of the case.
Point for consideration:
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief, as prayed for?
Decision with reason:
We have carefully heard the submission of ld. Lawyers of both sides. Admittedly, complainant deposited the requisite of fees for supply of electricity in his property and admittedly OP gave connection of electricity in the landed property of the complainant. Admittedly, OP discontinued the electric supply without any notice to the complainant. According to the OP, Bela Chakroborty and Rekha Chakroborty submitted written objection before the OP stating that one Title Suit being no. 261/2010 is pending before Coivil Judge, Jr. Division in Haldia Court in respect of plot under dispute and ld. Civil Court passed an order of status quo in response of the disputed plot. Despite the objection, connection was given to the complainant. Complainant filed copy of order sheet of the Court of Hadia. We have carefully perused the documents and found there is no injunction order on the disputed land at present. So, OP should reconnect the electric connection immediately. But considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not incline to impose any compensation on the OP except litigation cost.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
that the complaint case being no. CC/48/2016 be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP. OP is directed to reconnect the electric connection in the complainant’s dwelling house mentioned in the schedule of the complainant within 10 days from the date of passing this order. OP is also directed to pay Rs.1000/- as litigation cost to the complainant within 10 days from this day, failing which OP will be liable to pay Rs.100/- daily as punitive charges which will be payable to the Consumer Welfare Fund.
Let the copies of the judgement be supplied to all the parties free of cost.
