DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA.

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 18 of 2019

 

1. Aparna Dasgupta,

W/O.-Sri Swapan Kr. Das,

Near Governor House(Old), Kunjaban,

Agartala, West Tripura,

Pin-799005.............................................................Complainant.

 

 

 

-VERSUS-

 

 

1. The Deputy General Manager,

Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd.

(A Govt. of Tripura Enterprise)

O/O. The Deputy General Manager,

Capital Complex Division,

79 tilla, Agartala,

Dist-West Tripura, Pin-799006.

 

2. The Sr. Manager, 

Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd.

(A Govt. of Tripura Enterprise), 

ESD-V, GB(O & M), Near GB Bazar,

Agartala, West Tripura, Pin-799006. 

 

3. The Chief Managing Director,

Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd.

(A Govt. of Tripura Enterprise)

Bhuturia, Agartala, Tripura West,

Pin-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.

 

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA. 

 

 

 

C O U N S E L

 

For the Complainant : Sri Koushik Datta,

  Sri Kumar Sankar Sarma,

  Advocates. 

 

For the O.Ps. : Smt. Rajashree Purakayastha,

  Advocate.

 

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON: 22/02/2022

J U D G M E N T

The Complainant Smt. Aparna Dasgupta, set the law in motion by presenting the petition U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 complaining deficiency of service committed by the O.Ps. 

  The complainant's case, in brief, is that the Complainant is the absolute owner and possessor of land measuring 0.043 acres recorded in finally published Khatian No.66 Corresponding to Hal Plot No.91 and CS Plot No.8440/49884 classified as Bastu(tilla). As per request of the Complainant vide letter dated 08/06/2016 and subsequent demand note dated 08/08/2016 signed on 09/08/2016 by the O.P. No.1 and thereafter payment of Rs.17,916/- for shifting of L.T. Line, Electric post was erected in front of the house of Complainant. Presently the single connection of the Complainant had been converted to 3 phase connection. The previously erected electric post installing the connection of the Complainant was in front portion of the house has become idle and is providing obstruction for entrance to the house of the Complainant. Accordingly, the Complainant submitted an application dated 09/10/2018 for shifting the electric post which is standing in front of her house. Thereafter a demand note bearing No.F.No.3(7)/DGM/EDCC/4831-32 dated 15/11/2018 was issued by the O.P. No.1 for payment of an amount of Rs.2865/- (Rupees two thousand eight hundred sixty five only) for shifting the electric post from the front portion of the house of the Complainant. Subsequently as per the demand of the O.P. the Complainant have paid an amount of Rs.2865/-(Rupees two thousand eight hundred sixty five only) through Demand Draft No.908858 dated 04/12/2018. Thereafter, the electric post had not been shifted and for which the Complainant submitted an application dated 11/01/2019 before the O.P. No.2 for shifting / removal of old electric post. In response to the said letter the O.P. No.2 informed to the Complainant vide letter dated 18/01/2019 that an agency was sent to the site but the same could not be undertaken as the local people raised objection. The Complainant finding no other alternative approached the O.P. by serving a legal notice dated 13/02/2019 upon the O.Ps. narrating the entire fact and circumstances. The complainant suffered mental agony due to deficiency service committed by the O.Ps.

Being aggrieved by the conduct of the O.Ps., the Complainant has filed present complaint praying for compensation for mental agony, harassment and for deficiency of service of the O.Ps. apart from litigation cost by the O.Ps.   

Hence this case. 

Both the O.Ps have contested the complaint by filing written objection jointly denying the contentions and the allegations of the complainant. 

          In the written objection it is submitted that the Complainant suppressed the material facts and if any consumer is aggrieved by any act of TSECL, there is a complete alternative mechanism i.e. redressal forum under the Electricity Act, 2003. It is the settled position of law that when there is an alternative redressal forum, the aggrieved person shall first approach the said forum for resolution of dispute. But in the instant case Complainant did not approach the redressal forum. So the instant complaint is not maintainable in law. In the written objection it is also stated that two more connection have been given to two neighbours of the Complainant from the said electric post and therefore the electric post has neither become useless nor idle. Due to objection raised by the Local people the electric post could not be shifted and it is well aware by the Complainant. So there is no question of deficiency of service from the side of the O.Ps. and complaint petition is liable to be dismissed.      

3. Evidence adduced by the parties:-

The complainant examined herself as P.W.1. She submitted her examination in chief by way of affidavit. She has produced 10 documents comprising 17 sheets under a Firisti dated 16/04/2019. The documents on identification have been marked as Exhibit – 1 Series. The complainant was cross examined by the O.Ps'. side. 

O.Ps. adduced evidence of one witness namely Smt. Ruma Mitra, Senior Manager, Electrical Circle No.1, Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd., Banamalipur, Agartala, West Tripura. The said witness has produced 4 documents comprising 6 sheets under a Firisti dated 25/06/2019 which were marked as Exhibit- A Series. The witness of the O.P. was also cross examined by the Complainant side.    

4. Points to be determined:-

(i). Whether complaint is maintainable in its present form of nature and in law?

  (ii). Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps towards the complainant?     

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

5. ARGUMENTS OF BOTH SIDES:

            We have heard arguments of both sides.

            Learned Counsel of the Complainant submitted that since O.P. has received and accepted the shifting cost of L.T. Line they are duty bound for shifting the electric post which has caused hindrances for entering into the house of the Complainant.  

On the other hand Learned Counsel of the O.P. submitted that the complaint is not maintainable in law Under the Electricity Act, 2003. Moreover, O.P. was ready to shift the electric post but the neighbouring people gave obstruction as two more connection were given from the said post to the neighbouring house. Learned Counsel of the O.P. submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps. and complaint is liable to be dismissed. 

6. Decision and reasons for decision:-  

All the points are taken up together for the convenience for decision.  

    We have carefully gone through the pleadings  as well as evidences adduced from both sides. 

          On perusal of the Examination-in -Chief on Affidavit submitted by the Complainant, we find that at Para-3 she stated that she made a payment of Rs.17,916/- for shifting of L.T. Line, Electric post which was erected in front her house. 

          At Para-4, she stated that presently the single connection had been converted to 3 phase connection and the same has been installed from separate electric post from other side of her house. 

            At Para-5, she stated that the previously erected electric post installing her connection was in front portion of the house, which has become idle and is providing obstruction for entrance to her house. 

        In cross examination she stated that one day staff of the O.Ps. went to her house for shifting the electric post but they could not shift due to objection raised by her neighbours. She further stated that O.Ps. by two nos. of letters dated 04/01/2019 and 18/01/2019 informed her that O.Ps. unable to shift the electric post due to objection raised by neighbours and they also informed her to show a place where the post is to be shifted. She further in her cross examination stated that the electrical connection was given to two neighbours of the same locality from the said post. 

        On the other hand Smt. Ruma Mitra, OPW-1 stated that the electric post is not idle and two more connection have been given to two neighbours of the Complainant from the said electric post. But due to objection raised by the neighbour of the people electric post could not be shifted. In cross OPW-1 stated that electric post could not be shifted as the local public raised objection and then a letter was written to the Complainant to show another place for shifting but Complainant failed to show another suitable place. 

7.      On overall appreciation of the evidences of both sides, we found that Complainant has failed to approach the redressal forum under Electricity Act, 2003. We also find that there is no latches or deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. for shifting the electric post which is in question. 

Moreover, we find that Complainant did not come with clean hands and suppressed material facts. 

Accordingly, we are in the opinion that Complainant has failed to prove her complaint U/S. 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986. 

Hence, the complaint is dismissed and no costs. 

Supply a certified copy of the judgment to both the parties free of cost. 

  Announced.

 

 

 

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

 

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.