The complainant, a resident of Barnan Mouza under Kolaghat P.S. of dag no. 304, filed an application before the OP for effecting service connection to his dwelling house and after due enquiry, OP issued quotation to the complainant on 30-07-2011. As per said quotation the complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 200/- and Rs. 342/- i.e. total Rs. 542/- to the office of OP on 23-08-2011 towards service connection charge and security deposit respectively. However, in spite of said payment of quotation money, the OP has not taken any step to effect service connection to the residence of the complainant for which, he filed this case before the forum.
The OP entered appearance by filing WV as well as WNA. According to the OP, after receiving the quotation amount, the Station Manager engaged an enlisted contractor for effecting the service connection to the premises of the petitioner, but due to way leave problem and strong resistance from the part of one Srikanta Samanta of Vill. Dahabarnan, they could not execute the job and at present two nos. PPC poles are lying there. Afterwards, the complainant submitted a written prayer intimating that an amicable settlement has been made with said Srikanta Samanta and there was no objection in effecting the service connection to the premises of the petitioner. Accordingly, the OP sent another contractor in the year 2013 for effecting the service connection, but again due to obstruction of said Srikanta Samanta they failed to execute the work. In the month of June 2014, another enlisted contractor L&T Company went to effect the service connection to the premises of the complainant but they also failed to do the job. In paragraph 24 of the written version it is stated by the OP that WBSEDCL is unable to effect the service connection as the petitioner has failed to submit way leave clearance. Therefore, they denied any laches on their part.
Both the complainant and OP filed some documents in support of their respective submissions.
Two points comes up to be decided-
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OP?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief as prayed for?
Decisions with reasons
Point nos. 1 & 2
We discuss both the points together for convenience of discussion.
It is submitted by the OP that the complainant on 21.03.2011 applied for effecting service connection at his residential house and on the very same day complainant deposited earnest money for an amount of Rs. 200/- vide money receipt no. 12870. After receiving the money, the department arranged for survey/inspection of the premises of the complainant when they found that two nos. PPC poles would be required for effecting service connection to the house of the complainant and accordingly, they issued a quotation on 30-07-2011 directing the complainant to deposit Rs. 542/- which the complainant deposited on 23-08-2011. After receipt of quotation amount, the Station Manager engaged enlisted contractor for execution of the service connection work to the premises of the petitioner. But due to way leave problem and strong resistance from one Srikanta Samanta they could not execute the work. After the petitioner filed a written application stating that they had amicably settled the way leave dispute with Srikanta Samanta, the WBSEDCL Authority sent another contractor in the year 2013 to do the job, but they too faced stiff resistance from said Srikanta Samanta. It is also submitted by the OP that in the year 2014, L&T company sent their contractor for effecting the service connection to the premises of the complainant, but they also remained unsuccessful in their effort to execute the job and therefore, it is claimed by the OP that there was/is no laches on their part.
From the copy of letter of Dutta & Sons dt. 30-03-2013 addressed to the A.E. & S.M., Kolaghat CCC we find that the said contractor, due to objection from Srikanta Samanta, could not effect service connection to the house of the complainant. Another letter dt. 21-06-2014 of L&T Construction addressed to the SE & Project Manager, Purba Midnapur RE Project reveals that they too faced local resistance in executing their job.
However, while the OP accepted quotation money from the complainant after conducting due inspection of the site, they are duty bound to provide service connection to the house of the consumer. Merely by engaging private contractors to do the job, they cannot shrug off their responsibility. When the private agencies expressed their inability to do the job due to local resistance, neither the OP informed the matter to the complainant nor took any legal step against the obstructer(s). Be that as it may, the OP is duty bound to give service connection to the house of the complainant as they have received service charges from him long back in the year 2011.
Therefore, both the points are discussed and decided in favour of the complainant as there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP and as cuh, the complainant is entitled to the relief prayed for.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
that the instant case be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP. The OP is directed to effect service connection to the premises of the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order, if necessary with help from local P.S. OP is also liable to pay compensation for a sum of Rs. 5,000/- and litigation cost Rs. 2,500/- to the complainant for their gross negligence in effecting service connection to the house of the complainant within 30 days from the date of order i.d. complainant is at liberty to execute this order in accordance with law in which case fine at the rate of Rs. 100/- per day shall have to be paid by the OP to the complainant from this day till compliance of this order in toto.
