Hon’ble Mrs. Rumpa Mandal, Member.
The brief fact of the case is that Complainant applied for domestic connection due to urgent need of electricity for his newly constructed house. After full enquiry and satisfaction, the OP issued quotation and accordingly, Complainant paid the total quotation before the OP on 24.08.18 but till today OP did not install electric connection in the premises. Complainant in his complaint petition submits that on 09.10.18 Complainant went to the Office of the OP for electric connection but staff of the OP misbehaved with the Complainant and thereafter Complainant filed written complaint. Due to above activities the Complainant became victim of gross negligence as well as deficiency in service. So due to the misdeed of the OP, Complainant suffered mental agony and irreparable loss. The Complainant therefore prayed for directing the OP to install the electricity connection in the premises of the Complainant and to pass an order of Rs.10,000/- for mental agony due to the negligence in service by the OP and pass an order of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for not installation of Electricity Connection by the OP.
The OP contested the case by filing written version denying each and every allegation of the Complainant. The positive defence case of the OP in few words is that the OP started to verify the relevant documents after depositing the quotation fee by the Complainant. At the time of spot visit Op noticed that in the premises of the Complainant there is an existing electric connection in the name of the Mazir Hossain, who is the brother of the Complainant being Consumer Id No.424232969. The said connection was disconnected on 13.10.17 due to non-payment of outstanding bill of Rs.4,419.87/- till date. OP first verbally informed the matter to the Complainant for non-providing the new electric connection due to non-payment of outstanding bill of Rs.4419.88 and till date said Mazir Hossain did not pay the said outstanding bill to the WBSEDCL. OP mentioned in his written version that the Complainant has suppressed the fact of the existing electric connection at his premises in his brother’s name and also about the outstanding dues against the said electric connection by submitting false declaration to the WBSEDCL. The Complainant could not get new electricity connection due to the wrong/ incorrect declaration submitted by the Complainant. If the Complainant desires to take new connection in his name at that premises he has to resolve the above discrepancies as early as possible as per law. Therefore, the OP prayed for dismissal of the instant complaint.
After perusal of the pleadings of the parties it transpires that the following points are required to be decided.
Points for consideration
- Whether the case is maintainable or not?
- Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the OP?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for?
- To what other relief the Complainant is entitled to get?
Decision with reasons
Point No.1.
The OP challenged the case regarding maintainability.
Admitted position is that Complainant has applied for an electric connection and deposited the quotation money. At the time of spot visit of the premises, OP notice that there is existing electric connection in the name of his brother Mazir Hossain being consumer Id No. 424232969 and the said electric connection was disconnected on 13.10.17 due to non-payment of outstanding bill of Rs.4418.88 and till date said Mazir Hossain did not pay the said outstanding bill to the WBSEDCL.
The OP established in his evidence and argument that before award of new electricity connection for any premises, if any legitimate arrears are due in respect of old connection, no new electricity connection should be provided.
Having perused the pleadings of the parties and as per allegation of the OP, Complainant could not produce any document in support of his claim. Complainant has failed to produce any document to show that his premises and his brother premises is totally different. So, the Commission is of the view that the complaint case is not maintainable.
Accordingly, point No.1 is not decided on behalf of the Complainant.
Points No.2 & 3.
Both points are discussed jointly regarding the quotation as to whether any deficiency in service has been occurred with the Complainant.
The Complainant in order to establish the case adduced evidence by filing evidence on affidavit. The OP in order to discard the said allegation adduced evidence. Complainant also filed some documents being Annexure- A to C. Annexure- A is the sale deed of the Complainant. Annexure-B is the quotation as per WBSEDCL and Annexure-C & C2 are the money receipt in respect of quotation and security deposit for new connection.
Ld. Advocate for the OP submits in his argument that after depositing the security money, OP started to verify the relevant documents and at the time of spot verification it was noticed by this OP, that there is an existing electric connection and the said connection is in the name of his brother and for non-payment of outstanding bill, the said connection was disconnected. The OP requested him to pay but all are in vain.
The Ld. Advocate on behalf of the Complainant submits in his argument that due to non installation of electricity connection in the premises of the Complainant, he suffered mental agony and irreparable loss.
After filing of the case as per order No. 35 dated 13.05.2022 the case was referred to Lok Adalat for settling the dispute. From the Lok Adalat, the order was passed that the Complainant shall meet with the OP alongwith all the relevant documents on 27.05.2022. The OP after scrutiny of the documents shall pass appropriate order to restore the electric connection in the premises of the Complainant within 45 days from the date of verification of all documents. But after that as per order No.38 dated 19.07.2022 OP filed a report dated 18.07.2022 stating inter alia that the Complainant did not visit the Office of the OP alongwith necessary documents in compliance with the order of this Commission.
From the aforesaid discussion of the above mentioned order this Commission comes to the conclusion that the Complainant did not comply with the order of the Lok Adalat. This is the loof holes on the part of the Complainant. Complainant should have complied with the order of the Lok Adalat. Then OP could have taken positive decision on behalf of the Complainant. This is the deficiency on the part of the Complainant. The Complainant could not prove his claim. The documentary evidence he produced that is not sufficient.
In order to ascertain the veracity of the submission of the Complainant let us take recourse of the best document in this case which discloses the premises of the brother and his premises is totally different.
So, the Complainant is not entitled to any relief as prayed for.
Accordingly, Point No. 2 & 3 are not decided in favour of the Complainant.
Point No.4.
Previously this Commission has ascertained that non-installation of electric connection by the OP is not arbitrary and unjustified. The OP acted lawfully by applying the provisions of the Electricity Act and as such the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for. In the result Point No.4 is answered in negative and is decided against the Complainant.
Consequently, the case of the Complainant fails on contest.
Hence, it is
Ordered
That the complaint case No. CC/87/2018 be and the same is dismissed on contest.
D.A. to note in the trial Register.
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 be also available in the official website: www.confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me.
