West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

EA/24/2015

Sri Ramesh Maity - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Assistant Manager, WBSEDCL. - Opp.Party(s)

14 Sep 2015

ORDER

                                                            DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

Bibekananda Pramanik, President

and

Kapot Chattopadhyay, Member

   

Execution Case No.24/2015

                                                       

                                                     Sri Ramesh Maity…………………………………….……Complainant.

Versus

                                                    The Assistant Manager and the Divisional Manager, WBSEDCL.……..Opp. Parties.

 

              For the Complainant      : Mr. Swapan Bhattacharjee, Advocate

              For the O.P.                 : Mr. Debi Prasad Das Mahapatra, Advocate.

 

Decided on: - 14/09/2015

                               

ORDER

                    Bibekananda Pramanik, President-This is an application w/s 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.

                         D. Hr.’s case, in brief, is that he filed a complaint case being No.74/2013 before this Forum against the present J. Dr., who contested the said case by filing a written objection.  After a contested hearing,  this Forum vide order dated 17/01/14 allowed the case on contest and directed the J. Dr. to give new electric connection within 30 days from the date of order in default to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- only to the D .Hr.

         Although by the said order dated 17/01/2014, the J. Dr. was directed to install the service connection within 30 days but by violating the said order, the J. Dr. installed service connection on 14/05/15 but they have not yet paid Rs.20,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as litigation  cost to the  D. Hr.  Hence, this application u/s 27 of the C.P. Act.

           J. Dr. has contested this execution case by filing a w/o.  Denying and disputing the case of the D. Hr., it is the specific case of the   J. Dr. that the service connection was

Contd…………..P/2

 

 

                                                                           

 

( 2 )

effected on 4/12/13 by the contractor M/S Bandhab construction but due to lack of communication they said matter was not intimated by the said contractor to the J. Dr. during hearing of the said complaint case.  It is further stated that due to some system problem, consumption of the above mentioned connection could not be raised up to 24/2/15.  According to the J. Dr no violation of the order of the ld. Forum has been committed by the J. Dr.

 

                                                                                                       Point for decision

                     Has the J. Dr. violated the order dated 17/01/14 passed by this Forum in complaint case no.74/2013 or not ?                        

                                                                                                        Decision with reasons

                       

                It appears from the certified copy of the impugned  order dated 17/01/14 that the  J. Dr. was directed to give new electric connection within 30 days from the date of order, in default, to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- to the D. Hr.   By filing the present execution case, the D. Hr. has stated that the J.Dr. has violated the said order dated 17/01/14 as they installed the service connection to the D. Hr. on 14/05/15 and they have not yet paid Rs.20,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as cost to the D. Hr.  In support of his said contention, the complaint has filed the meter reading card in respect of that service connection, wherefrom we find that the first reading of the said connection was taken on 14/05/15.  It is needless to say that as and when the service connection is effected, the meter reading card is issued showing the first reading with date.  This document was issued by none else than the J. Dr.  This document finds supports of the D. Hr.’s case that service connection was effected on 14/05/15.  J. Dr. has made out a defense that they gave service connection on 04/12/2013 but the concerned contractor   M/S Bandhab Cconstruction did not inform regarding such installation of service connection on 4/12/2013.  In support of their said case the J. Dr. has produced few documents such as Meter Movement Register, a letter dated 20/01/2014 written by one Amulya Kumar Das and another letter dated 16/1/2014 in the letter head of M/S Bandhab Construction.   None of these two letters bears any official receiving seal with signature of the J. Dr. and therefore no reliance should be placed upon these two documents.   At best it can be said that these two documents well subsequently procured for defending this case.  About Meter Reading Register, we find that the concerned meter was issued for installation on 1/10/2012.  This register was in very much custody of the J. Dr. but for the

Contd…………..P/3

 

 

 

 

                                                                           

( 3 )

   reasons best known to the J. Dr.,  this register was not produced during the hearing of that complaint case no.74/13.  Be that as it may, this document is not sufficient enough to prove that in spite of issuance of the meter, the same was installed within one month from the date of order of that complaint case.  On the contrary, we find from the said Meter Reading Card that it supports the case of the complainant that long after the date of order dated 17/01/2014, service connection was given on 14/05/2015.  We, therefore, find that J.  Dr. has violated the direction of this Forum regarding installation of service connection within one month from the date of order.  It is not denied and disputed that the opposite party has not yet paid the amount of compensation and cost for such violation.  The execution case is, therefore, held to be allowed.

                                                  Hence, it is,

                                                     Ordered,

                                                                               that the Execution case no.24/2015 is hereby allowed  on contest with cost.  J. Dr is directed to pay compensation amount of Rs.20,000/- (Twenty thousand) only and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- (Five thousand) only to the D. Hr. within one month from this date of order.

                 Dictated & Corrected by me

                                Sd/-                                              Sd/-                                      Sd/-

                           President                                       Member                                President

                                                                                                                          District Forum

                                                                                                                       Paschim Medinipur