District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum
Dakshin Dinajpur, W. Bengal
(Old Sub-Jail Municipal Market Complex, 2nd Floor, Balurghat Dakshin Dinajpur Pin - 733101)
Telefax: (03522)-270013
Present
Shri Sambhunath Chatterjee - President
Miss. Swapna Saha - Member
Shri Siddhartha Ganguli - Member
Consumer Complaint No. 12/2015
Md. Lutfar Rahaman Mondal,
S/o Late Badaruddin Mondal,
Vill.& PO: Safanagar,
PS: Kumarganj,
Mob-9002218303
Dist. Dakshin Dinajpur …………………Complainant(s)
V-E-R-S-U-S
1. The Assistant Engineer,
Group Electric Supply, Kumarganj,
W.B.S.E.D.C. Ltd.
P.O & P.S: Kumarganj,
Dist.: Dakshin Dinajpur.
2. The Station Manager,
Kumarganj Customer Care Centre (CCC),
W.B.S.E.D.C. Ltd.,
P.O & P.S: Kumarganj,
Dist.: Dakshin Dinajpur. …………………Opposite Party / Parties
Ld. Advocate(s):
For complainant ……………… - Shri Kishor Kr. Bhattacharjee &
- Madhumita Das
For OP Nos. 1 & 2 ……………… - Shri Sudip Chatterjee
Date of Filing : 04.02.2015
Date of Disposal : 30.09.2015
Contd…P/2
Judgment & Order dt. 30.09.2015
The case of the complainant is that the complainant is an agriculturist by profession and in order to get electricity connection in his agricultural field for installation of a submersible pump, he applied to OP-1 whereby a quotation was received and the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.6,989/-. As per terms of the said quotation the amount was deposited on 5.6.2013 within stipulated period of time dt. 6.6.2013.
It is the contention of the complainant that the said connection was applied for providing electricity in his submersible pump to enhance his agricultural product by providing water during lean season. In spite of receiving the said amount as mentioned here in above. The complainant was not provided with the connection for his submersible pump, as a result the pump has not functioned causing serious hardship to the complainant. The complainant on numerous occasions visited the office of the OPs to get the connection but his prayer was not fulfilled. As a result of which the complainant had sent a lawyer’s letter, in spite of receiving the letter no action was taken on the part of OPs.
It is the contention of the complainant that for not providing the electric connection by the OPs the complainant has faced financial hardship and finding no other alternative to tied over such problem the complainant had to file this case praying for providing electric connection to the submersible pump as well as financial damages sustained by him.
The OPs contested the case by filing written version whereby the OPs denied all the material allegations made in the complaint. It is the contention of the OPs that after receiving the amount and after observing all the formalities the OPs issued LOI vide No.KMG/CCC/STW/LY-1010 dt. 7.2.2014 against the work order No.DM/DD/SC/363-13-14, 6.2.2014 to M/s. Matri Electrical & Co. and the contractor to execute the work order at that time he was resisted by the local people who stood on a way in providing the connection to the complainant. The OPs also stated that whenever the complainant met OP No.1 he was advised to obtain ‘No Objection’ from the local people but he failed to provide the same but ultimately, he filed this case making false allegation against the OPs. During the inspection it was noticed that the meter room remained incomplete and the wiring of line of the complainant also remained incomplete for which the LT line could not be provided, apart from resistance made by the local people of the village.
Considering all the aspects the OPs prayed for dismissal of the case.
On the basis of the pleadings of the respective parties following points are to be determined :-
- Is the complainant applied for electric connection for running his submersible pump?
- Whether the complainant deposited the amount as sought for by the OPs?
- Whether the OPs ………………….to provide electric connection to the complainant?
- Whether any resistance was made by the local people for which the OPs referred from execute the work order?
- Is the complainant entitled to get relief as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
All the points are taken together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of the said fact.
Ld. Lawyer for the complainant argued that after submission all the relevant papers including the quotation money the complainant repeatedly requested the OPs to provide electric connection but the OPs did not comply the request made by the complainant. The complainant on numerous occasions met the OPs and also made a prayer for providing electric connection but no step was taken in spite of receiving the amount the OPs die not comply the application in discharging their official functioning to provide the electric connection to the complainant and since the OPs failed to discharge their duties and as such it is a clear case of deficiency in service and the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for.
Ld. Lawyer for the OPs argued that the work order was issued for executing the work but due to resistance made by local people the work could not be done. Ld. Lawyer for the OPs emphasized that at least protection is provided the work can be done properly and the OPs will not hesitate to execute the work in presence of police personnel.
Considering the submission of the respective parties it appears that the complainant applied for obtaining electric connection to run his submersible pump and for that purpose he deposited the amount as per quotation issued by the OP No.1. During the course of hearing of argument Ld. Lawyer for the complainant submitted written version whereby it was stated that now the crops are standing on the field and the villagers may not allow to provide electric connection and for that purpose the petition has been filed by the complainant stating inter alia that after harvesting of paddy i.e. after 4 months the work can be done and the villagers will not raised any objection. In view of the said petition filed by the complainant Ld. Lawyer for the OPs argued that let an order be passed by this Forum for execution of the work and the body of the judgement the said fact is to be mentioned.
Considering all the submission of the OPs it appears that the OP No.1 is willing to execute the work provided no resistance is faced by the contractor who will execute the work.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hold that the case be disposed of with the direction upon the OPs to execute the work within 4 (four) months from the date of judgement and the Ld. Lawyer for both the parties have agreed to the said proposal. Thus, all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
that the instant petition of complaint CC No.12/2015 is allowed on contest but without any cost.
The OPs are directed to provide the electric connection in respect of submersible pump of the complainant within 4 (four) months from the date of judgement and the complainant will assist the OPs to execute the work by controlling the unruly villagers from creating disturbance at the time of execution of work.
Let a plain copy of this order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost.
Dictated & corrected
………Sd/-….…….
(Sambhunath Chatterjee)
President
We concur,
……Sd/-..…… ……Sd/-..……
(S. Saha) (S. Ganguli)
Member Member
- Date when free copy was issued ……………………
- Date of application for certified copy ……………………
- Date when copy was made ready ……………………
- Date of delivery ……………………
FREE COPY [Reg. 18(6)]
- Mode of dispatch ……………………
- Date of dispatch ……………………
-x-
