The Complainant-s case, in brief, is as follows:
The complainants submitted a representation before the OPs through Savapati, Nandigram-II Panchayat Samity on 17-07-2006 for getting electric connection at their residential houses situated in Plot no. 1970/1971, 1972 and 2016 at Mouza Gopalpur under P.S. Nandigram, Purba Medinipur; and the Sahakari Savapati, Nandigram-II Panchayat Samity recommended for installation of two electric poles for this purpose at the cost of the complainants. Prior to that, the Complainants also filed a writ petition against the OPs on 18-06-2001 before the Hon-ble High Court, Calcutta, being WP no. 20410(W) of 2000 and the Hon-ble High Court, Calcutta, vide its order dt. 18-06-2001 was pleased to direct the OPs to treat the writ petition as a representation and to dispose of the same in accordance with the law. On 18-07-2006, the Savapati, Nandigram-II Panchayat Samity also recommended for giving electric connection to the residential houses of the complainants and others under MP LAD Scheme. Subsequently, the OP no. 1 issued quotation vides Memo no. PM R E C C/sche 79/172 dt. 10-08-2006 in the name of the Savapati, Nandigram-II Panchayat Samity for depositing Rs. 15,307/- on the basis of his recommendation and the complainants deposited the same on 14-08-2006 by a demand draft as per said quotation. Although the OPs installed two electric poles for giving electric connection to the houses of the complainants, but they failed to effect electric connection to the houses of the complainants, in spite of the repeated requests of the complainants. As such, the complainants sent a lawyer-s notice dt. 25-07-2007 to the Ops, requesting them to make arrangements for giving electric connection to the houses of the complainants, but in vain. As such, the complainants filed the instant complaint praying for issuance of direction upon the OPs to give electric connection to the houses of the complainants and to pay compensation for the harassment of the complainants.
The OP no. 1 did not turn up in spite of receipt of notice.
The OP no. 2 contested the case by filing their written versions contending, inter alia, that they issued work order for erecting two electric poles for giving electric connection to the houses of the complainants and although the concerned contractor installed two poles for the purpose, the electric line to the houses of the complainants could not be drawn due to objection raised by one Sunil Kumar Jana of the locality; that for the failure of the complainants to show any alternate route for drawing electric line to their houses, they could not give electric connection to the houses of the complainants; and that they are ready and willing to give electric connection to the houses of the complainants if the complainants can show any alternative route for drawing electric line to their houses.
The Points for decisions are –
- Whether the complainants are consumers of the OP-Insurance Company within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986?
- Whether OP-Insurance Company was deficient in service within the meaning of Sec. 2(1)(g) and 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ?
- Whether the complainants are entitled to get relief/reliefs as sought for?
Decisions with reasons
Point No. 1:
The complainants filed the instant complaint against the OPs alleging that the OPs failed to effect electric connection to the houses of the complainants, in spite of receipt of money as per quotation issued by the OPs for the purpose. So, complainants are deemed to be the consumers of WBSEB subsequently known as WBSEDCL represented by the Ops, as the complainants already paid the money as per the quotation issued by the Ops.
Point nos. 2 & 3:
Both these points are taken up together for the Convenience of discussion as they are interlinked.
It revealed from the letter dt. 17-07-2006, written by the complainant no. 1 to the Savapati, Nandigram-II Panchayat Samity that the complainants proposed to take electric connection to their houses on payment of the cost of two polls, while the work of electrification was going on at Vill. Gopalpur and the Sahakari Savapati of the Nandigram-II Panchayat Samity recommended for such electric connection to the houses of the complainants on payment of the cost of two polls by the complainants themselves. The letter dt. 18-07-2006 written by the Savapati, Nandigram-II Panchayat Samity, to the concerned officer of WBSEDCL revealed that he also recommended for effecting electric connection to the houses of the complainants under the MP LAD scheme. It further revealed from the Memo no. PM R E C C/sche 79/172 dt. 10-08-2006, issued by the OP no.1 that the Op no. 1 issued the quotation with reference to Memo no. 286 dt. 18-07-2006 of Savapati, Nandigram-II Panchayat Samity, wherein the Savapati recommended for giving electric connection to the houses of the complainants under the MP LAD scheme. The complainants asserted in their complaint that the complainant no.1 deposited Rs. 15,307/- in the office of OPs on 14-08-2006 by demand draft issued by Central Bank of India, Reapara Branch. The Photocopy of such demand draft drawn in favour of -West Bengal State Electricity Board- for Rs. 15,307/- dt. 14-08-2006 has been filed.
The OPs asserted in their written version that on receipt of quotation money, the concerned contractor erected two poles for effecting electric connection to the houses of the complainants, but due to strong objection raised by one Shri Sunil Kr. Jana, the contractor could not draw the electric line as certain portion of the line would have encroached upon the land of objector, Shri Sunil Kr. Jana; and that for the failure of the complainants to show any alternative route to draw electric line to their houses, the Ops. could not effect electric connection to the houses of the complainants as proposed.
However, during proceedings of the case, the complainants produced a hand sketch Map indicating an alternative route for effecting electric connection to their houses through plot no. 1996, owned by the complainants (which is adjacent to the public road), drawing electric line from the existing pole of the OP-WBSEDCL by erecting two poles on the public road. As such, we propose to direct the OPs to effect electric connection to the houses of the complainants through plot no. 1996 by erecting two poles on the public road as shown in red ink in the hand sketch map filed by the complainants.
Hence,
it is ordered,
that the complaint be allowed on contest. The OPs are directed to effect electric connection to the houses of the complainants through plot no. 1996 by erecting two poles on the public road as shown in red ink in the hand sketch map filed by the complainants, within three months from the date of communication of this order, failing which they are liable to pay a fine of Rs 100/ per diem to the complainant till compliance of the order. The parties do bear their respective costs.
The case is thus disposed of.
Let a copy of this judgment be supplied to each contesting parties free of cost.
