West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/32/2016

Tushar Kanti Jana - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

28 Jun 2016

ORDER

 

 

 

 

 

                                                            DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

Bibekananda Pramanik, President

And

Mrs. Debi Sengupta, Member

 

Complaint Case No. 32/2016

                                                       

                                                   Sri Tushar Kanti Jana, S/o Laxmikanta Jana, vill. Konarpur, P.O. Kuthi Konarpur,   

                                                   P.S. Ghatal, Dist. – Paschim Medinipur…………..….……Complainant.

Versus

 

                                                  Station Superintendent, Birsingha C.C.C., W.B.S.E.D.C.L., P.O. Birsingha, P.S.

                                                  Ghatal, Dist. Paschim Medinipur..………...........…..Opp. Party.

 

              For the Complainant: Mr. Asim Kumar Dutta, Advocate.

              For the O.P.               : Mr. Swapan Kumar Bhattacherjee, Advocate.

 

Decided on: - 28/06/2016

                               

ORDER

                          Bibekananda Pramanik, President – Facts of the case, in brief, is that the complainant is a cultivator having 10 big has of fertile lands in his area and for this reason he installed a deep tube well in his land in plot no.747 of mouza Konarpur within the jurisdiction of this Forum.  He applied for electric connection in his said deep tube well before the office of the opposite party and after enquiry the opposite party sent one quotation on 28/01/2015 directing the complainant to deposit Rs.7,317/- within 90 days. Accordingly the complainant deposited the entire quotation amount of Rs.7,317/- on 30/01/2015.  He also deposited all documents and bonds as per Electricity Act.  Even thereafter, the opposite party did not arrange

Contd………………….P/2

 

 

 

( 2 )

 for installation of electric line in his said mini deep tube well.  The complainant obtained  cultivation loan of Rs.99,000/- from the State Bank of India,  Ghatal Branch but without electricity he was unable to cultivate his lands for about one year and for this reason, the complainant sustained loss of  Rs.90,000/-.  It is stated that the opposite party previously installed temporary electric line for limited days and  therefore there is no problem to install the electric line in the mini deep tube well.  The complainant is a consumer of the opposite party and the opposite party received money as per quotation from the complainant about one year back but the opposite party intentionally did not install electric line as prayed for by the complainant.  This type of act on the part of the opposite party is deficiency in service and hence the complaint praying for directing the opposite party to install electric line in the mini deep tube well of the complainant and for an award of Rs.90,000/- for loss of cultivation  and for other reliefs.

                          The opposite party has contested this case by filling a written objection.                        

                   Denying and disputing the case of the complainant, it is the specific case of the opposite party that they received the quotation money from the complainant and also issued work order in favour of M/S. Dilip Mondal for such installation of electric connection  and they went to the spot on 14/07/2015 but due to strong objection by the local people, they could not give electric connection in the mini deep tube well of the complainant.  Said agency made another attempt on 21/08/2015 for effecting electric service connection but that could not be done.  Complainant was very much present on those days but knowing fully well about such obstruction, he has filed this case with false allegation.  Opposite party therefore asked the complainant to submit another way leave for effecting electric connection but the complainant did not submit anything and therefore the opposite party sent a letter to the complainant on 16/03/2016 requesting him to submit way leave permission but the complainant did not submit such way leave permission.  It is also the case of the opposite party that due to non co-operation of the neighbour and the local people, they could not effect electric service connection and therefore there is no question of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  Opposite Party therefore claims dismissal of the case.   

Point for decision

                               Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs, as sought for ?                      

Decision with reasons

 In this case, neither the complainant nor the opposite party adduced any sort of evidence, either oral or documentary, but they have relied upon some documents, so filed by them.

Contd………………….P/3

 

 

( 3 )

             Admittedly, the complainant approached the opposite party for effecting electric service connection in his said mini deep tube well and the opposite party sent a quotation to the complainant and the complainant also deposited the quotation money of Rs.7317/- on 30/01/2015.  It is not denied and disputed that the complainant also deposited all necessary documents and bonds as per Electricity Act.  According to the opposite party after receiving such quotation money, they issued work order in favour of M/S Dilip Mondal for effecting such service connection of electricity in the mini deep tube well of the complainant and they accordingly went to the spot on 14/07/2015 but due to strong objection of the local people, their agency could not effect service connection in the mini deep tube well of the complainant.  It is also stated that  again the said agency made an attempt on 21/08/2015 but for the aforesaid reason, service connection could not be effected.  At the time of hearing of argument, Ld. Lawyer for the complainant submitted that no person on behalf of the opposite party went to the spot for effecting service connection.  In view of such denial opposite party produced no document to show that their agency went to the spot on 14/07/2015 and 21/08/2015 for effecting service connection.  There is also no evidence on the part of the opposite party to show and to prove that the local people raised objection in effecting  such service connection.  Had there been any such obstruction by the local people, the opposite party could very well lodge a G.D before the local P.S. but that has not been done.  Opposite party also could seek the help local Panchayet for effecting service connection had there been any obstruction by the local people.  Therefore the said case of the opposite party that their agency went to the spot for effecting service connection is neither proved nor believable.   Opposite party has further stated that they requested the complainant to submit another way leave by sending a letter dated 16/03/2016 but in spite of that, the complainant did not furnish such another way leave.  As against this, it was submitted on behalf of the complainant that since the complainant has already submitted a way leave at the time of furnishing quotation,  so there is no question of  submission of another way leave afresh. We find substance in the said submission of the Ld. Lawyer of the complainant. 

            In view of our above discussion, we are of the opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party for not effecting service connection of electricity as prayed for by the complainant in spite of the fact that the complainant has already deposited quotation money and all necessary documents.  Therefore the petition of complaint deserves to be allowed.

Contd………………….P/4

 

 

 

 

 

( 4 )

 

                                      Hence, it is,

                                                            Ordered,

                                                              that the complaint case no.32/2016  is allowed on contest with cost against the opposite party.  Opposite party is directed to effect electric service connection in the mini deep tube well of the complainant within a month from this date of order.  Opposite party is further directed to pay a sum of  Rs.3,000/- as compensation and litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant within one month from this date of this order.

                               Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

 

                

  Dictated and Corrected by me

          Sd/-B. Pramanik.                                          Sd/- D. Sengupta.                                    Sd/-B. Pramanik. 

               President                                                        Member                                                 President

                                                                                                                                               District Forum

                                                                                                                                            Paschim Medinipur