Hon’ble Mr. Subhas Ch. Guin, Member.
The facts of the instant case in brief is that Complainant’s mother who is a bonafide consumer of WBSEDCL had her service line of electricity snapped on 05.04.16 due to some unknown reasons for which Complainant informed the matter to WBSEDCL over phone for restoration of connection on very next day. The maintenance group of WBSEDCL came to the site on 07.04.16 for restoration of service line but they could not do the work as objection was raised by a neighbour over whose house the service line was connected. Afterwards OP also took many attempts to restore the service line but failed to do so due to way leave permission not given by neighbour. Thereafter Complainant approached the O.P. No.1 for restoration of service line and submitted all related documents to prove that the house of neighbour who was raising objection was illegal. He lodged a complaint with Kotwali PS, Cooch Behar on 17.04.2016 against one his neighbours who raised objection for restoration of service line. He also applied for restoration to the Assistant Engineer and Divisional Engineer, WBSEDCL on 08.04.16 and 20.05.16 respectively alongwith all documents and submitted a prayer for restoration of service line to the O.P. No.2 on 01.07.16. But all these attempts for restoration were in vain. Thereafter O.P. No.1 requested Complainant to shift the steel angle of his house to another side of his house so that electric connection could be restored through another direction without crossing the house of the neighbour but the Complainant was reluctant to do so. Ultimately O.P. No.1 restored the service line of the Complainant by erecting a new pole with their own cost without claiming any service charge from the Complainant. Regional Grievance Redressal Officer, Cooch Behar intimated the Complainant about the reconnection by a letter dated 27.06.16 with a request to contact his office if there is any grievance. On receipt of this letter Complainant submitted a prayer before the RGRO, Cooch Behar for compensation for delay in restoration of service line on 29.07.16 for which 29.08.16 was fixed for hearing. On 29.08.16 a hearing was held in the office of the RGRO, Cooch Behar where Complainant was present but his mother, a consumer of WBSEDCL was not present. After hearing both parties RGRO, Cooch Behar came to the conclusion that failure in providing service to the consumer did not arise here so no question of compensation.
A copy of this order was sent to the consumer Smt. Anjali Das on 05.09.16 with advice to her to place her views within 15 days from the date of issuance of this order failing which her acceptance of the above analysis would be acknowledged. Again on 19.09.16 Smt. Anjali Das sent a response to RGRO, Cooch behar stating her dissatisfaction against the order dated 05.09.16 and prayed for compensation also. Thereafter RGRO, Cooch Behar passed the Final Order dismissing her claim for compensation in a letter dated 19.09.16 and advised her to approach the office of the ombudsman, WBERC, Kolkata-91 if not satisfied.
Having found no alternative the Complainant filed this case before this Commission for getting proper justice. He also prayed for a direction to the O.Ps to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- for deficiency in service, Rs.1,50,000/- for mental pain, agony and unnecessary harassment and Rs.19,000/- towards cost of litigation.
Summons were served upon the O.Ps. O.P. No.1 appeared before the Commission and contested the case by filing written version, evidence on affidavit and written argument. The case was decided to be heard ex-parte against O.P. No.2 as he did not turn up on receipt of summon from the Commission. O.P.No.1 in his defence case mentioned that Complainant was not a consumer but his mother was a consumer of WBSEDCL.
This case was filed by the Complainant with an authorisation from his mother. On the context of authorisation a case law cited by O.P. No.1 in which Hon’ble National Commission states that a person can file a case on behalf of someone who has been incapacited in any manner or prevented in any manner from filing complaint before the Commission. But in this case no such proof of incapacitance or prevention from filing the case was placed before the Commission. So this case is not maintainable in the eye of Law. O.P. No.1 argued that on receipt of a phone call from the Complainant they attempted many times to restore the service line of the Complainant but could succeed to do that due to way leave permission not given by one of his neighbours. Even the O.P. No.1 tried to convince the neighbour by a letter stating consequences of restraining the Government servant from discharging their duties. Finding no way out of the problem, O.P. No.1 requested the Complainant to shift the steel angle of his house in another position so as to restore the service line in other direction without crossing the house of the neighbour who was raising objection. But the Complainant did not agree to that proposal. Ultimately O.P. No.1 restored the service line by a new pole with their own cost without claiming any charge from the Complainant. So, O.P. No.1 claimed that there was no deficiency in service on their part.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the instant case maintainable in its present from and prayer?
- Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the OP?
- Is the Complainant is entitled to get any relief?
- To what other relief the Complainant is entitled?
Point No.1
Complainant filed this instant case with an authorisation from his mother who was a consumer of the O.P No.1 Company which is admitted by the O.P. No.1. But O.P. No.1 raised strong objection regarding maintainability of the case during argument for which he cited a case law reported in[2013] CJ 743(NC) in a case of Amit Sharma Vs BHEL and others in which Complainant, the wife of Amit Sharma could not produce any proof of incapacitance or prevention from filing the case in any manner in favour of her husband which was required for maintaining the case by her. The above said case was dismissed on the ground of maintainability. Mere authorisation letter is not sufficient to maintain the case. One has to prove the incapacitance or prevention from filing the case in any manner in favour of someone for whom the case is filed. Here, in this instant case Complainant submitted mere authorisation from his mother but did not submit such proof of incapacitance or prevention from filing the case in any manner in favour of his mother. Thus relying on the above said case law the Commission is of the view that this instant case is not maintainable in the eye of law.
So, this point is decided against the Complainant.
Point No.2
Service line of the consumer was snapped on 05.04.16. He intimated the incident to O.P. No.1 over phone on 06.04.16 and O.P. No.1 attended the job of restoration of service line on 07.04.16 which was resisted by one of the neighbours of consumer. On 08.04.16 consumer submitted a prayer before O.P. No.1 for restoration of service line in accordance with law. Thereafter O.P. No.1 took many attempts to restore the same but could not succeed due to failure to obtain way leave permission from the one of his neighbours. O.P. No.1 tried to restore the connection with the help of local administration (Panchayat and Pradhan). O.P. No.1 also sent a letter to the neighbour to take legal action for restraining Government servant from discharging their duties but all these attempts were in vain. O.P. No.1 also tried an alternative way to restore the service line by changing direction of steel angle of the consumer’s house but consumer was reluctant to do so. Finally O.P. No.1 restored the service line on 12.07.16 by building a new pole with his own cost without claiming any service charge from the consumer.
So, the plea of the O.P. No.1 is that consumer spent the days without electricity from 05.04.16 to 11.07.16 due to the cause which was beyond control of O.P. No.1. Moreover the above said delay of restoration of service line could have been reduced to minimum had all work of the O.P’s Department been not suspended due to notification of Assembly Election.
So the Commission comes to conclusion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. No.1.
Therefore Point No.2 is decided against the Complainant.
Point No.3 & 4.
From the afore said Point No.2 the Commission is of the view that O.P. No.1 left no stone unturned to restore the service line of the Complainant as early as possible. So there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. No.1.Therefore the Complainant is not entitled to get any sort of relief as prayed for in the complaint petition.
Therefore the Points No. 3 & 4 are answered in negative and are decided against the Complainant.
Consequently, the case of the Complainant fails on contest.
Hence, it is
Ordered
That the complaint case No.CC/26/2018 is dismissed on contest without cost.
Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied to the concerned party by hand/by Registered Post with A/D forthwith, free of cost, for information & necessary action as per rule.
The copy of the Final Order is also available in the official website: www.confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me.
