West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/95/2014

Sri Asit Paul - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Station Manager, Kharagpur C.C.C. W.B.S.E.D.C.L. - Opp.Party(s)

13 Jan 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

 Complaint case No.95/2014                                                                                                  Date of disposal: 13/01/2015                               

 BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT :  Mr. Sujit Kumar Das.

                                             MEMBER :  Mrs. Debi Sengupta.

                                             MEMBER :  Mr. Kapot Chattopadhyay.

  

 For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff : Mr.A. Haldar, Advocate.

 For the Defendant/O.P.S.                       : Mr.S. K. Bhattacharya, Advocate.                                   

          

 Sri Asit Paul. S/o Badal Chandra Paul, Vill. Paschim Pathri, P.O. Hijli Co-operative Society, P.S. –

 Kharagpur (Local), Dist- Paschim Medinipur, Pin-721306…………..Complainant

                                                           Vs.

 The Station Manager, Kharagpur C.C.C., W.B.S.E.D.C.L., Shakti Bhavan, Kharagpur, Dist-   

 Paschim Medinipur, Pin-721305...……………Op.

          The case of the complainant Sri Asit Paul, in short, is that he applied for new electricity connection and accordingly he deposited security deposit Rs.905/- and SC charge Rs.1800/- on 18/01/2012 but since then he did not get electricity connection. Being aggrieved, the complainant moved before the Op with an application dated 26/02/2014 and thereafter on 13/03/2014 he served a lawyer’s notice.  Even thereafter, the Op failed to provide service connection as prayed for.   So, the present case has come up before us with the prayer for getting electricity connection, compensation and litigation cost.  In this connection, payment receipts, inspection report, lawyer’s notice with postal, papers are produced by the complainant. 

          The Op contested the case by filling written objection challenging that the case is not maintainable for want of cause of action.  In this connection, it is stated by the Op that there was no LT infrastructure with necessary poles and as such the scheme was under BRGF Project meant for rural area. So there was no scope to execute the service connection unless the BRGP Project and formalities are satisfied.  The reason stated here has been knowingly suppressed by the complainant, for the purpose of presentation of this case against the Op.  thus, there is no valid ground for the complainant and as such the case should be dismissed.

          Upon the case of both parties the following issues are framed.

Contd……………P/2

 

- ( 2 ) -

Issues:

1)Whether the case is maintainable in its present from?

2)Whether the complainant has any cause of action for presentation of this petition of complaint?

3)Whether the delay in providing new connection is justified on the part of the Op?

4)Whether the complainant is entitled for getting relief as prayed for.?

 

Decision with reasons

Issue Nos.1 to 4:

              All the issues are taken up together for discussion as those are interlinked each other for the purpose of arriving at a correct decision in the dispute.

             Ld. Advocate for the complainant made his argument that the application for new connection alongwith statutory payment was made by the complainant on 18/01/2012 but there was no action for providing necessary service to the complainant.  After long days, the complainant was constrained to have moved before this Forum after due notice to the Op on 13/03/2014.  In this connection, Ld. Advocate has admitted that after presentation of this case, new connection has been effected to.  Only grievance of the complainant stands against the Op for compensation and litigation cost.  This should be seriously considered by the Forum that how much period of delay has been caused by the Op without explaining any tinge of reason at least, by giving a reply, to the last application filed by the complainant on 26/02/2014.  This act of remaining long silent over the matter of new connection even upon getting statutory payment to the Op long before, particularly on 18/01/2012, is undoubtedly highly deplorable and as such granting of compensation with litigation cost as prayed for by the complainant is justified and if it is granted, proper justice in such a case is to be held to the parties.

        Ld. Advocate appearing for the Op raised strong objection through his vociferous argument clarifying the actual cause of delay in providing new electricity connection to the complainant.  It is claimed that the area where the complainant resides is within the jurisdiction of BRGF Scheme/ Project of Central Government and the infrastructural work was allotted by the Central Government agency.  LT Company started their work as per order made upon due formalities between the Central Government and the Agency.  So, there is no cause of action for presentation of this case alleging therein that the Op is liable for deficiency of service.  In view of such valid ground the complainant should not get any relief as prayed for, admittedly, since he has already obtained new electricity connection to his domestic place of residence.  Thus, the case should be dismissed with cost.

        We have carefully considered the case.  It appears that the electricity connection has been

Contd……………P/3

 

- ( 3 ) –

 

given to the complainant at any point of time after filing this case dated 23/07/2014 against his requisition and payment of statutory charges dated 18/01/2012.  Now, the matter of new connection has no dispute for the purpose of prayer for direction in this regard.  Only the prayer for compensation and litigation cost being the highlighted issues agitated by the complainant are carefully considered by us.  On scrutiny, we do not find any sincere steps, acquired responsibility and procedural duty of the Op in the matter of giving due intimation explaining the alleged/probable delay in providing electricity connection to the complainant.  A citizen living in a rural area eagerly awaiting for new connection upon payment of statutory charges should not be neglected in such a designed manner creating and unwarranted darkness in his everyday hope cherished in his mind.  Here, no evidence intimating the delay is forthcoming on the part of the Op, so that we do find to be satisfied ourselves that the alleged delay since 18/01/2012 till filing of this case dated 23/07/2014 is justified.  Thus, there is strong reason to hold and decide that the Op should be responsible for deficiency of service.

        Upon the findings, the amount of compensation is to be assessed with the help of certain relevant conditions, situation and total background of the family member of the complainant.  Here in the case, we do not find any such information through evidence.  So, only upon by virtue of prudent consequential effect in the mind of the complainant for having no electricity for long days despite having payment of statutory charges, we may propose for a sum of Rs.10,000/- being  a nominal amount of compensation which should, according to our views, be just and proper for the purpose of this case.

        In view of the above, all the issues are held and decided in favour of the complainant.  As a result, the case succeeds against the Op.

               Hence,

                           It is Ordered,    

                                                    that the case be and the same is allowed  on contest  without cost.

      The complainant do get a compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) only payable by the Op within 30 days from this order.

 

Dictated & Corrected by me

              

         President                          Member                                 Member                             President

                                                                                                                                    District Forum

                                                                                                                                 Paschim Medinipur.