West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/82/2013

Sri Ram Pada Pakhira - Complainant(s)

Versus

The A. E. of Station Manager, Ghatal Customer Care Centre, WBSEDCL - Opp.Party(s)

13 Sep 2013

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

 Complaint case No.82/2013                                                         Date of disposal: 13/09/2013                               

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

                                                      MEMBER :  Mrs. Debi Sengupta.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mr. Kapot Chattopadhyay.

 

  For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff : Mr. S. Bhattacharya. Advocate.

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

            Sri Ram Pada Pakhira, S/o-Late Anil Chandra Pakhira of Vill-Kushpata, P.O. & P.S.-

            Ghatal, Dist-Paschim  Medinipur…………………………………Complainant.

                                                              Vs.

1. The A. E. of Station Manager, Ghatal Customer Care Centre, WBSEDCL., P.S. & P.O.-

      Ghatal, Dist-Paschim Medinipur

2)   The Chairman, WBSEDCL, Bidyut Bhaban, Salt Lake City, Kol-91………………Ops.

       The case of the complainant Sri Ram Pada Pakhira, in brief, is that he has no electricity in his residence where he resides with his two daughters who are students.  It is alleged that they are suffering from various problems in absence of supply of electricity even upon payment of quotation money to the electricity authority.  In this matter, the complainant for several times pursued the electricity authority and ultimately failed to get supply of electricity to his residence.  In this way the complainant raised his prayer for heavy compensation, award with specific direction for new service connection against the Op/Electricity Authority.

      Op-Electricity Authority contested the case by filing W/O challenging that the case is  not maintainable for want of cause of action and barred by Electricity Act.  The entire allegation is denied.  It is claimed by the Ops that, rather, upon the application form dated 26/11/2011 for new connection, the Ops. have proceeded into the matter and accordingly made inspection and quotation, even, work order has been passed on 24/02/2012.  But at the time of erecting line for new connection in favour of the petitioner, there was strong resistance from the end of Sri Tara Pada Pakhira who is brother of the complainant.  In this context, it is claimed by the Op that the

Contd………………..P/2

 

- ( 2 ) -

petitioner was well aware of the fact of real affairs between the brothers of the complainant.  Regarding relation between the brothers of the complainant, there pending a civil suit being its no.79/2012 before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ghatal.  All these aspects were duly within the knowledge of the complainant. But even so, he suppressed all material facts purposely and is trying to mislead the forum.  Thus, the Op claims for dismissal of this case.

                             Decision with reasons

         In order to establish the case, the complainant has produced certain documents in Xerox copy by firisti namely inspection report dated 15/10/2011, quotation dated 12/2/2012, money receipts towards the payment of Rs.200/- (Two hundred) only on account of house SC charge Rs.4040 as security deposit and Rs.200/- (Two hundred) only for earnest money.  Referring to those documents it is claimed that as the Op/Electricity Authority received the requisite fees, charges and deposit from the end of the complainant, no supply of electricity has still been given to the residence of the complainant and as such there is according to the opinion of the Ld. Advocate for the complainant, strong case of deficiency in service against the Op/Electricity Authority.  If that be so, the prayer for direction of supply of new electric connection and compensation should be passed in favour of the complainant.

       Ld. Advocate appearing in for the Op/Electricity Authority in reply submitted that the case should be dismissed on the ground that the complainant has not come before the Forum with clean hand.  In order to fortify his submission it is very clearly pointed out that there is a strong resistance from the end of brother of the complainant.  A Civil Suit is pending which is already known by him.  If that be so, the question has come as to why the complainant has suppressed the material facts.  In such circumstances a person seeking relief must come with honest disclosure of all relevant facts of the case, in default, his case should be considered to have caused an abuse of process of the Court.  Further submitted that the complainant knows every steps of taking action in favour of giving new service connection to him.  These materials evidence can easily be found from the documents itself produced by the complainant.  In view of the fact, the Op/Electricity Authority cannot be blamed with the allegation of deficiency in service in the matter of giving new service connection to the complainant.

     In conclusion, the Ld. Advocate for the complainant made his argument drawing our attention that electricity now a days is very much essential.  Right to life has been recognized by our constitution.  In this connection, Section 43 Electricity Act 2003 is referred to by submitting that the supply of electricity shall be given within a month from the date of application and the same should be done even without insisting on the no objection certificate from any private party.  In this score, Ld. Advocate has referred to the decision report in W.P. no.134 of 2006 and

Contd………………..P/3

 

- ( 3 ) -

submitted that this is a fit case where necessary direction to the Op may be given for new connection in favour of the complainant creating no equity and or right in favour of the complainant and without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties involved in the alleged civil suit.

     Upon careful consideration of both parties including their respective submissions it is very clear case that there pending a litigation between the complainant and his brother  and there exists a contending relation between themselves. The complainant is seeking supply of new electricity connection to his residence.  The case decision explained by the Ld. Advocate for the complainant is in relation to the matter of a writ petition and in that context the said writ petition were deemed to have been admitted on the ground of absence of involvement of other necessary parties on the point of the fact so far as it relates to the filing of affidavits towards the allegations contains in the writ petition.  Secondly, the decision is exclusively in connection with writ matter where as this Forum has its designed jurisdiction for determining whether the Op has any conduct of deficiency in service.  Here in our case.  There is valid evidence which shows that the Op/Electricity has proceeded for giving new connection in favour of the complainant till resistance comes from his brother with the whip of a Civil Case pending before the court having proper jurisdiction to decide their dispute. That apart, as regard to the fact of strong resistance allegedly made by the brother of the complainant, there is no statement, whisper or any tinge of disclosure in any form is found in the entire contents in the case of the complainant.  It is curious enough that even after knowing the fact of W/O there was no challenge raised by the statement of complainant by means of counter affidavit.

     In view of the facts and circumstances it may be held and decided that there is no case of deficiency in service as allegation made by the complainant against the OP/Electricity Company.  Thus, the case should fail.

                        Hence

                                    It is ordered,

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

 

Dic. & Corrected by me

              

         President                            Member                  Member                                  President

                                                                                                                              District Forum

                                                                                                                         Paschim Medinipur.