THE PRESIDENT

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

CASE No.  CC-  49 of  2019

 

1. Smt. Maitreyee Deb,

W/O- Sri Chandra Kanta Sarkar,

 

2. Sri Chandra Kanta Sarkar,

S/O- Late Goinda Chandra Sarkar,

 

Residents of Bhati Abhoynagar 

Cantonment Road, Agartala. ......................................Complainan

 

 

-VERSUS-

 

1.  Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd. 

To be represented by 

The Chairman cum Managing Director,

Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd. 

Bidyut Bhawan, Bodhjung Chowmuhani,

Agartala, West Tripura-799001.

 

2. Chairman cum Managing Director, 

Bidyut Bhawan, Bodhjung Chowmuhani,

Agartala, West Tripura-799001.

 

3. Senior Manager,

Durga Chowmuhani,

Sub- Division, ESD III, 

Pragati Road, Krishnanagar,

Agartala, P.S. West Agartala,

West Tripura-799001. ....................................Opposite Parties.

 

     __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI RUHIDAS PAL

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

Dr (SMT) BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

C O U N S E L

 

For the Complainant : Sri Subrata Roy,

    Learned Advocate.

  

For the Oposite Parties : Sri Nepal Majumder,

    Learned Advocate.

 

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON :  14.12.2020

 

 

J U D G M E N T

  The Complainants, Smt. Maitreyee Deb and Sri Chandra Kanta Sarkar has filed one complaint U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Opposite parties namely Triprua State Electricity Corporation Ltd. and Others seeking relief against the Opposite parties(in short O.Ps), for negligency and deficiency in service by the O.Ps.  

The complainants case in short is that the complainant no.2 is the husband of the complainant no.1, now the complainant no.2 is a retired Central Govt. Employee. About one year back they have constructed their house in their given address. Accordingly they prayed before the appropriate authority for giving electric connection to their house and O.P. provided connection in the name of Smt. Maitreyee Deb(complainant no.1) and for that purpose the complainants also paid service connection charges as well as security deposit. For providing connection to another house which was situated just after crossing their house, the O.P. installed a wire stand to strengthen the electric post. But unfortunately the wire stand creating disturbance to the entrance of the house of the complainant. It is stated that the electric stand where it was constructed is a personal road of the complainant and without taking any consent from the complainants, the O.P. installed the wire stand. Thereafter, complainant no.2 submitted a letter to the Senior Manager on 01.03.2019 and 04.05.2019 to remove the said obstruction. But unfortunately the O.P. ignored all submissions, did not remove the wire stand and as such the complainant are suffering a lot. It is further stated that the O.P.  has claimed a charge of Rs.10,000 which is illegal. Being a consumer the complainant have a right to claim for removal of every obstruction by the O.P. for their enjoyment. Hence, the complainants filed this complaint claiming compensation as well as giving direction to the O.Ps to remove the wire stand installed in front of the house of the complainant.    

Hence this case.  

On the other hand, on receipt of the notice from this Commission the O.Ps appeared and jointly filed written objection denying the complaint filed by the complainant and contested the proceeding. In their written objection they stated that the complaint is barred by the principle of estoppels, acquiescence and waiver. There is also no cause of action as the complainant no.2 is not a consumer as per definition of Consumer Protection Act and he has no  locus standi to file the case. More over, there is no cause of action arose for this complaint as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

 

In their written objection it is stated that service connection in the house of the complainant no.2 was given in favour of Smt. Maitreyee Deb on 11.04.2018 on deposition of requisite charges. Another service connection has been extended/drawn  8/10 years ago in favour of Gopal Sukla Baidya in the pole adjacent to the house of Smt. Deb and that pole was erected long back with a line set due to site alignment. The house of Smt. Deb has been constructed later on. It is further stated that on the application of the complainant estimate has been prepared for an amount of Rs.10,504/- for removal of the stay set and it was intimated to Smt. Deb. The stay set was erected earlier at the time of extension of LT line and Smt. Deb constructed her house later on and as per application of Smt. Deb an estimate was prepared for removal of the stay. A consumer has the right to claim for removal of any obstruction for his interest, but necessary charges are also to be borne by the respective applicant. It is further stated that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps. There was also no negligence on the part of the O.Ps. So, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 

 

3. EVIDENCE ADDUCE BY THE PARTIES:-

The Complainant no.2 submitted his examination in chief by way of affidavit and examined himself as PW-I. He has produced 04 documents. The documents on identification have been marked as Exhibit – 1 Series. The complainant was also cross examined by the O.P. side.

  On behalf of the O.Ps, one witness namely Sri Nirmal Debnath, Senior Manager, Electrical Sub-division, ESD-III has filed examination in chief. He was examined and also cross-examined by from the side of the Complainant. On behalf of the O.Ps, 3 documents filed which were marked as Exhibit- A Series. 

 

4. POINTS TO BE DETERMINED:- 

  (i) Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps towards the Complainant?

  (ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation/  relief as prayed for?

            

6. DECISION   AND  REASONS  FOR  DECISIONS:- 

      We have heard arguments of both sides at length. Mr. Subrata Roy for the complainant argued that the complainants are consumer of the O.Ps and being a consumer they have the right  to use the electricity without any hindrance, at the same time O.P. has also duty to allow the consumer to enjoy their all rights. But unfortunately the O.P. ignoring all Act and Rules, did not remove the wire stand since from the date of the objection of the complainants. He further argued that the wire stand is erected on the jote land of the complainant without taking consent of the complainant. So it is the duty of the O.Ps to remove the wire stand without taking charge from the complainant. He further submitted that due to that obstruction complainant has suffered financial loss as well mental agony. So complainant are entitled to get adequate compensation and also submitted that direction may be given to the O.Ps for removal of the wire stand free of charge. 

On the other hand Learned counsel of the O.Ps, Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd. argued that complainant no.2 is not a consumer as per definition of the Act. Complainant no.2 has no locus standi to present the complaint. On 01.03.2019 the complainant No.1 made a prayer for shifting of the electric wire stand. The answering  O.Ps communicated the estimate of L.T Stud pole to remove stay set against the application of the petitioner. The estimate for removal cost of L.T stud pole is Rs.10,504/-. The complainant instead of payment filed the complaint which is not tenable in law. It is further argued that the pole stud in question have been erected long back and estimate has been prepared for removal of stay set as applied by the complainant no.1. So, a consumer has to bear necessary charges for removal of any obstruction as per rules. It is further argued that the office is always ready to co-operate with all consumer and to help up to their level best. There is no deficiency of service from the part of the O.Ps. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.

 

We have perused the pleadings of both the parties as well as the evidences adduced by them. On perusal of the evidence and pleadings it is found that actually complainant no.1 is the consumer and she applied for connection and her consumer ID number is 510043643. There is no dispute in this regard. The subject matter of the dispute is the removal of the wire stand situated in front of the house of the complainant on a asmali road. From the exhibited documents it is found that the complainant no.1 made a application before the authority(O.P.) for removal of the wire stand and in the application it is also mentioned that they will bear the expenditure of removal and accordingly the O.P. prepared the estimate of Rs.10,504/-. In this regard there is also no dispute. From the pleadings and the evidence of the side of the complainants, we find there are contradictory version. In the complaint petition they mentioned at para- 6 that at the time of posting the pillar and wire stand on the personal road of the petitioner the O.P. did not take any permission from the petitioner. Whereas it is found that house of the complainant was constructed later on after posting of the pillar and wire stand. And from the documentary evidence it is crystal clear that the road is not belonged to the complainants and it is an ejmali road. On overall appreciation of evidence of both sides we find that the wire stand which is in question was installed long before the construction of the house of the complainant. So, as per rules, if there is any obstruction or hindrance is caused due to the wire stand to the complainant then complainant is to bear the expenditure of removal. In this regard we find that O.P. are very much co-operative and they prepared estimate on receipt of the application but instead of making payment of the removal cost the complainants filed this complaint before this Commission(Forum) which is not justifiable. Accordingly, we find no merit in the complaint and also we are of the opinion that the complainants have failed to prove any consumer dispute. The complaint petition is devoid of any merit. Hence, it is dismissed.

 

Announced.

 

 

SRI R. PAL

PRESIDENT, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

 

 

Dr (SMT) B. PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.