Sri Santi Prosad Roy, Member
This is a case of effecting domestic electric connection to the house of the complainant by the OP.
The fact of the case, in short, is that the complainant is a permanent resident of Purba Medinipur district in L.R. plot no. 470, 471, 474 and 475, Mouza- Mogra, P.S.- Moyna. The complainant applied for domestic electric connection to his residence before the OPs vide his application no. 200330093. The OPs after enquiry, issued quotation to the complainant. As per quotation of the OPs, the complainant duly deposited security charge and house service connection charge i.e. Rs.459/- in total to the OPs on 24.12.2011. The complainant visited the OP no. 1 several times to pursue the matter but to no good. As a result, the complainant had to suffer mental agony. On 12.11.2015, the complainant sent a letter to the OP no. 1 requesting him to effect the new electric connection to his house on urgent basis. But the OPs did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. On 01.12.2015, the OP no.1 sent a letter to the complainant asking him to submit way leave for service connection. On 14.12.2015, the complainant sent a reply to the OP no.1 with sketch map showing the way leave. However, in spite of that the OPs did not effect new domestic electric connection to the complainant. Hence, the case.
The OP no.1 contested this case by filing W/V and WNA. The OP no.2 received the notice but did not appear to contest the case. Hence, the case was proceeded exparte against the OP no.2. The OP no.1 denied the material allegations made against him by the complainant and prayed for dismissal of this case. It is stated by the OP no.1 that on the application of the complainant, the OP no.1 issued quotation to the complainant. The complainant deposited the requisite fees as per quotation with the OP no.1 on 24.12.2011. The OP no.1 sent their listed agency to effect the service connection to the house of the complainant. But the listed agency of the OP no.1 reportedly could not effect the connection due to strong objection raised by the neighbours of the complainant. Thereafter, on 01.12.2015, the OP no.1 sent a way leave letter to the complainant to clear the way leave dispute and also informed local Police Station vide Moyna P.S. G.D. entry no. 76 dtd. 02.12.2015. The complainant allegedly did not send any reply to the OP no.1 regarding way leave and, as such, the OP no.1 prayed for dismissal of this case.
Points for consideration
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OP?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief, as sought for?
Decision with reason
Both the points are taken up together for brevity and convenience of discussion as they are interrelated.
We have perused all the documents filed by the parties and heard the arguments as advanced by the ld. Lawyers of complainant and OP no.1.
It appears that the complainant applied for new electric connection line to his residence. As per quotation of the OPs, the complainant duly deposited security charge and house service connection charge i.e. Rs.459/- in total to the OPs on 24.12.2011. The complainant visited the OP no. 1 several times to pursue the matter but it yielded no result for which the complainant had to suffer a lot. On 12.11.2015, the complainant sent a letter to the OP no.1 requesting him to effect the new electric connection to his house on urgent basis. But the OPs did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. On 01.12.2015, the OP no.1 sent a letter to the complainant asking him to submit way leave for service connection. On 14.12.2015, the complainant sent a reply to the OP no.1 with sketch map showing the way leave.
So, it is not a fact that the complainant did not reply to the way leave letter of the OP no.1, as alleged by OP no.1. It is curious to note that the OP no.1 sat tight for four years after receiving the quotation fees from the complainant on 24.12.2011. In the meantime the complainant met the OP no.1 several times to pursue the matter. The OP no.1 swung to action only when he received a reminder letter from the complainant on 12.11.2015.
The OP no.1 filed two documents – one letter addressed to the complainant regarding way leave problem dated 1.12.2015 and another letter addressed to the O/C, Moyna P.S. regarding local dispute. So, it appears that the OP no.1 initiated to work only after receiving the reminder letter of the complainant.
As per Electricity Act, 2003 the OP no.1 is duty bound to effect the service connection to the complainant within one month from the date of application which the OP no.1, unfortunately, did not perform. For four years the OP no.1 kept tight their hands causing inordinate delay in giving service to the complainant. The OP no.1 argued that they could not effect the service connection to the complainant’s house due to strong objection raised by the neighbours, who are also co-sharers. Had it been so, the OP no.1 could have done the job with the help of local P.S., but they did not do so. However, no paper of such neighbours’ objection is forthcoming before us.
The complainant, interalia, filed the partioned deed and sketch map of his residence. It appears that the complainant is a bonafide resident having a permanent residence at Purba Medinipur district in L.R. plot no. 470, 471, 474 and 475, Mouza- Mogra, P.S.- Moyna. The complainant has also filed a decision of Gujrat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad vide I (2006) CPJ 312. Perused the judgement and found that it is applicable in this case as it is a continuing cause of action in spite of the fact that complainant filed the case beyond limitation period.
In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of the opinion that there is gross deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.1 and the complainant is entitled to get relief, as sought for.
Both the points, are thus, decided in favour of the complainant.
Hence, it is,
ORDERED
that the complaint case being no. CC/3/2016 be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP no.1 and exparte against the OP no.2. The OPs are directed to effect the electric service connection to the residential house of the complainant, with police help if necessary, within 40 days from the date of this order. The OPs are also directed to pay the complainant, jointly/severally, compensation and litigation cost to the tune of Rs.10000/- and Rs.5000/- respectively with proportional equality within 40 days from the date of this order. In case the OPs fail/neglect to comply the order, the complainant will be at liberty to execute this order in accordance with law, in which case the OPs shall be liable to pay fine jointly/severally Rs.100/- per diem from this day till compliance of this order in toto.
