West Bengal

Dakshin Dinajpur

CC/10/20

Smt. Shanti Biswas - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Asst. Engineer . - Opp.Party(s)

Ld. Adv

29 Jul 2011

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum

Dakshin Dinajpur, W. Bengal

(Old Sub-Jail Municipal Market Complex, 2^nd Floor, Balurghat Dakshin Dinajpur Pin - 733101)

Telefax: (03522)-270013

Present

Sri B. Niyogi - President

Sri S. K. Ghosh - Member

Miss. Swapna Saha - Member

Consumer Complaint No. 20/2010

Smt. Shanti Biswas

W/o Lt. Narayan Chandra Biswas,

Uttar Chak Bhabani (Uttamashapally), P.O.: Beltalapark,

P.S.: Balurghat,

Dist. Dakshin Dinajpur.……………………………Complainant

V-E-R-S-U-S

The Assistant Engineer,

Balurghat Group Electric Supply, W.B.S.E.D.C. Ltd.

P.O. & P.S.: Balurghat.

Dist. Dakshin Dinajpur. …………………Opposite Party

For complainant …- Sri Nihar Roy, Ld. Adv.

For OP - Sri Sudip Chatterjee, Ld. Adv.

Date of Filing : 14.05.2010

Date of Disposal : 29.07.2011

Judgment & Order dt. 29.07.2011

Instant CC case bases upon a complaint u/s 12 C.P. Act, brought by the complainant Smt. Shanti Biswas on 14.05.2010 against the Assistant Engineer, Balurghat Group Electricity Supply of the W.B.S.E.D.C.L. alleging deficiency in service.

Shorn of details complainant’s case as made out in the said complaint is that she by an application made before the OP sought for obtaining electricity connection to her residence situated at Uttar Chak Bhabani, Uttamasha Pally, Balurghat, Dakshin Dinajpur. Such application was assigned the No. 142/D-Town dt. 12.6.09. A quotation bearing No.U-5(61) dt. 8.8.09 was issued against the said application. The quotation amount of Rs.650/- was paid by her on 9.10.10. The premises was inspected by lineman who procured from the complainant some documents and took signature of the complainant on some other documents. Such electricity connection was not provided even after expiry of a period of 8 months since inspection. Visits to the office of the OP for obtaining of the supply of electricity also prove abortive. Lawyer’s notice dt. 30.3.10 issued from the end of the complainant also went unheeded.

In the backdrop of such circumstances the complainant brought the complaint seeking a direction upon the OP to provide the service connection and to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.30,000/- by way of compensation for harassment and agony caused to her.

The proceeding has been contested by the sole OP on whose behalf a written version was presented on 7.12.10 admitting submission of the application by the complainant for obtaining electricity connection and making of payment of the quotation amount on 12.6.09 but disputing the other material allegations. It has been the case of the OP that after the amount demanded for effecting the connection had been paid, lineman named Pragati Kr. Roy was deputed for effecting the connection and installation of the meter.

Contd…P/3

The said lineman went to the premises on 11.2.10 for effecting connection but could not accomplish the same owing to strong objection raised by other members of the family and submitted report in writing to that effect on 11.2.10. The complainant was intimated about it on 17.2.10 under Memo No: BES/TS/3949.

In fact, one Suman Biswas – a son of the complainant in a petition stated that his mother had been divorced wife of his father and that at the time of demise of his father one Dolanchampa was the married wife of his father.

Connection could not be provided in view of objection raised by her son of the complainant. There was, in fact, no deficiency in service on the part of OP and the complainant brought the complaint having suppressed the truth.

Upon the pleadings of the sides following points come up for determination :-

POINTS

1. Was there deficiency in service on the part of OP?

2. Should the reliefs sought for in the complainant, be granted.

Decision with reasons

The averments made in the complaint have been verified by the complainant. In support of her case she also examined herself as PW1 and brought on record as documentary evidence the copy of the quotation issued from the OP as Ext-3 and two receipts of payment as Exts.-1 & 2. Several other documents were also filed on behalf of the complainant in this case on 14.5.10 and on 10.2.11 which include copy of the judgement passed in CR Case No. 128/08 of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Balurghat brought by her and that of the Criminal Appeal No.5/09 preferred against the judgement the said CR Case.

Averments made in the written version of the OP has also been supported by verification. OP also examined himself as OPW 1 and brought on record as documentary evidence, beside others, copy of the lineman’s report dt. 11.12.10 as Ext. C, copy of a letter purported to be addressed to the complainant from the end of the OP as Ext.-H. A number of other documents were also filed on behalf of OP in this case on 5.1.11, 10.2.11 and 3.3.11 with notice to the complainant. Such other documents include copy of a written objection made before the WBSEDCL over the providing of the electricity connection to the complainant.

Let us now enter into the determination on the two points formulated above.

Point No.1:

Here the deficiency in service what has been alleged in the complaint is that despite holding of inspection of the premises and issuance from the end of the OP a quotation demanding payment of a certain amount for providing of the service connection and complainant’s making payment of such amount the OP has not affected the service connection to the complainant’s residence.

The payment receipt Ext. 2 and the quotation Ext. 3 purport and it goes undisputed that the complainant deposited with office of the OP on 9.10.09 an amount of Rs.650/- which had been demanded from the OP for providing of the service connection. It also remains admitted that the service connection has not been affected yet.

It has been the case of the OP that a lineman deputed from his end had gone to the premises in question along with materials for effecting the connection but he could not accomplish the same in view of objection raised by other intimates of the house. On behalf of OP a report dt. 11.2.10 submitted by the lineman has been brought on record as Ext.-C. It has virtually been stated in such report that the connection could not be effected in view of objection by other intimates of the house. In fact, the complainant in course of her cross examination as PW-1 (recorded as page-2) did not deny the suggestion given from the end of the OP that the men of the OP had been obstructed by complainant’s son - Suman in course of their attempting to provide the connection. Such being the situation we find reasons to accept the case of the OP that their lineman having had gone to the complainant’s residence on 11.2.10 for effecting the service connection failed to accomplish the same for objection raised by the intimates of the house.

It has been testified by the OP during his examination as OPW-1 (at page –3) that after the lineman had failed to effect the service connection a letter was issued from his end demanding way leave in view of submission at their end a written objection by Suman Biswas - son of the complainant. Original written objection submitted by the said Suman has not been brought on record as a piece of documentary evidence. However, copy of such written objection was filed on behalf of OP in this case on 5.1.11 and it remains marked as X for identification. The impression of the endorsement of receipt appearing on such document purports that such written objection was received at the end of WBSEDCL on 18.7.09 i.e. about three weeks before the issuance of the quotation from the end of the OP instructing the complainant to make payment of the estimated expenses for the connection.

Ordinarily, it is expected that way leave if required are to be obtained before issuance of the quotation as under quotation the distributing agency virtually instructs the intending consumer to make deposit of the expenses for effecting the connection. Here the OP claims to have demanded the way leave under his letter dt. 17.2.10 i.e. about six months after the issuance of the quotation even though, the written objection over the providing of the service connection which prompted OP to demand way leave, had been received at their end about three weeks before the issuance of the quotation. In such situation failure in demanding the way leave prior to the issuance of the quotation has to be viewed to have been a deficiency in service on the part of OP.

That apart, though the OP claims that way leave was demanded under his Memo dt. 17.2.10 (Ext.H), nothing appears to have been brought on record to show that such Memo was actually served upon the complainant. In fact, the OPW-1 during his cross examination (recorded at page-9) could not deny the suggestion that the said Memo demanding way leave had not been received at the end of the complainant. The complainant in her POC appears to have averred that they failed to take any action despite service of her Lawyer’s notice dt. 30.3.10. Having kept in view the copy of the said Lawyer’s notice and that of the concerned postal receipt of registration filed on behalf of the complainant on 14.5.10 and the circumstances it may be presumed in this case that the said Lawyer’s notice which was put in transmission by registered post on 30.3.10 was served upon the OP by the end of April, 2010 or so. The OP does not claim to have responded……to the said Lawyer’s notice disclosing that they could not proceed with the matter of providing of service connection in view of complainant’s failure in submitting the way leave demanded from his end. Such conduct on the part of OP also amounts to deficiency in service.

We thus decide this Point No.1 holding that there was deficiency in service on the part of OP as observed above.

Point No.2:

Copy of the complainant’s son – Suman’s written objection dt. 18.7.09 filed on behalf of OP purports it was alleged by the said objector Suman Biswas that though her mother had sought for service connection basing upon the title deed standing in the name of his father Narayan, complainant was not actually the wife of the said Narayan as the marriage tie between complainant and the said Narayan had come to end earlier by a decree of divorce and that the complainant was residing in the house forcibly.

The complainant during her examination as PW-1 claimed that she has been residing in a portion of the building, the other portion of which are occupied by her son Suman and by her brothers-in-law and that she brought a proceeding against his son and the said brothers-in-law alleging domestic violence and that she obtained an order in her favour in that other proceeding.

Certified copy of the order dt. 30.3.09 passed in CR 128/08 purports that in the said CR Case brought by the complainant against her son Suman and 3 others alleging domestic violence, an order was passed in her favour directing the respondents not as to inflict torture upon the complainant observing that such an order was necessary so that the complainant could reside in her residence without being subjected the torture.

It has been claimed by the OP in course of her cross-examination as OPW-1 (at page-3) that the demand for way leave was made in view of submission of the aforesaid written objection by the complainant’s son Suman. Here the OP does not claim that decision over the written objection of the said Suman was taken giving the complainant an opportunity was being heard.

It has been testified by the complainant that in other portion of the building in which she resides, there are other occupants including the said Suman. It is quite likely that the said Suman or other occupants are obtaining supply of electricity to the portions of the building occupied by them. If there remains the service connection for supply of electricity to some other portion of the building and if that be adequate, laying of supply line over some portions of the premises upon which the building situates, might not be required.

Having kept in view the attendant circumstances, in particular, making of payment of the amount demanded by the OP for effecting of the service connection, the submission of written objection by complainant’s son - Suman, likelihood of obtaining supply of electricity by occupants of other portions of the building, we deem it wise to direct the OP to decide as to the written objection giving the concerned parties an opportunity of being heard and thereafter to give the complainant an opportunity of causing submission of way leave, if reasonably required or in the alternative an order of competent Court for getting the supply line laid for effecting of the connection.

In the circumstances, we do not deem it proper to direct the OP, otherwise.

Point No.2 is thus decided.

In the result, the complaint is allowed in part.

It appears from the case record that the OP was served with the notice of this proceeding on 13.7.10. Instant proceeding is thus getting disposed of about 1 year after the service of notice upon the OP. It appears that such delay has been caused in view of a good number of adjournments sought for mainly from the side of the OP either for presenting written version or for hearing.

Under such circumstances, it is.

O R D E R E D

That the complaint u/s 12 CP Act brought by the complainant Smt Shanti Biswas on 14.5.10 is allowed in part giving directions mentioned hereinafter.

The OP is directed to decide over the written objection submitted by the complainant’s son Suman giving the concerned parties including the present complainant, an opportunity of being heard and thereafter to give the complainant an opportunity of causing submission of way leave, if reasonably required or in the alternative of causing production of order of competent Court for getting the supply line laid for effecting of the connection to her residence. Thereafter the OP would proceed with the application for the service connection in consonance with the provisions of the prevalent Act and Regulations with reasonable promptness.

Let plain copies of this order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost.

Dictated & corrected

(B. Niyogi)

President

We concur

(Swapna Saha)

Member

(S.K. Ghosh)(S.K. Ghosh)

Member