West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/80/2017

Nirmal Jana - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Subrata Das

09 Aug 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

     Bibekananda Pramanik, President

and  

Sagarika Sarkar, Member. 

 

Complaint Case No.80/2017

 

Sri  Nirmal Jana, S/o Late Kanai Jana, at Daulatpur, P.O. Barkola, P.S. Kharagpur (L),

District Paschim Medinipur……………………Complainant.

Vs.

The Station Manager/ Assistant Engineer, Nimpura C.C.C., W.B.S.E.D.C.L., At

Nirmura, P.O. Nimpura, P.S. Kgp (L), District Paschim Medinipur....… ……………………….….Opp.Party.

                                                     

              For the Complainant: Mr.  Subrata Das, Advocate.

              For the O.P.               : Mr. Tapan Bhattacharjee, Advocate.

 

Decided on: - 09 /08/2017

                               

ORDER

                 Bibekananda Pramanik, President – Complainant Nirmal Jana has filed this consumer complaint on 02/05/2017, alleging deficiency in service on the part of             O.P.-Station Manager, Nimpura C.C.C., W.B.S.E.D.C.L., Paschim Medinipur.

               Complainant’s case, in brief, is as follows

                              Complainant Nirmal Jana runs a hotel business at Daulatpur within the jurisdiction of this Forum and his said business is the only source of income for his  livelihood by way of self-employment.  The complainant applied before the O.P. for a new electric service connection and the O.P. issued a quotation on 21/03/2017.  The complainant accordingly deposited quotation amount of Rs.2607/- on 22/03/2017 in the office of the O.P. but the O.P. did not provide electric connection to the complainant in spite of his several request.  It is

Contd…………………..P/2

 

 

 

                                                                                        ( 2 )

stated that the O.P. has deficiency in service for not providing electric connection and hence this complaint, praying for directing the O.P. to effect electric service connection to the complainant and to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation and Rs.5000/- as litigation cost.

      The opposite party has contested this case by filling a written objection.

      Denying and disputing the allegation of the complainant, it is the specific case of the opposite party that the complainant applied for commercial new service connection on 01/03/2017.  O.P. held an  inspection on 09/03/2017 in  the business place of the complainant and on inspection, it was found that there was no LTOH line of the O.P. to provide electric connection there and the O.P. therefore issued a letter to the complainant vide memo no.NNP/NSC/1741 dated 21/03/2017.  After receiving the said letter, the complainant informed the O.P. in writing to provide connection on another way with his own responsibility.  After receiving the said letter, O.P. engaged their agency M/s Biswakarma Electrical for effecting service connection but they could not do so due to local objection on 17/04/2017 and the said agency also informed the O.P. regarding such inability vide their memo no.NMP/61 (II) dated 28/4/2017.  O.P. therefore asked the complainant for submitting way leave permission but the complainant took no step.  It is stated that as per Board’s rules/norms, it is the settled principal that if any objection is received then way leave is necessary.  So there was no latches and negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. and the petition of complaint is therefore liable to be dismissed.

                                                                 Points for decision

1. Is the case maintainable in it’s present form and prayer?
2. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
3. Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs, as sought for?    

                   

Decision with reasons

At the very outset, it is to be stated here that in this case, neither the complainant nor the opposite party adduced any sort of evidence, either oral or documentary but they have relied upon some documents, so filed by them in this case. 

From the respective pleadings of the parties it appears that admittedly the complainant applied before the O.P. for providing electric service connection in his hotel and after receiving the prayer of the complainant, the O.P. issued a quotation on 21/03/2017 and after receiving such quotation, the complainant deposited the quotation amount of Rs.2607/- on 22/03/2017 in the office of the O.P.  According to the complainant, after receiving such amount, the O.P. has neglected and failed to provide electric connection to the complainant thereby causing deficiency in service.  As against this, it is the case of the O.P. that after receiving such quotation money, the O.P. held an inspection and during such inspection, it was

Contd…………………..P/3

 

 

 

                                                                                           ( 3 )

found by them that there was no LTOH line of the O.P. and they accordingly informed the complainant and the complainant, in reply, informed the O.P. to provide electric connection on another way with his own responsibility.  It is also the case of the O.P. that after receiving such letter,  the O.P. engaged their enlisted agency M/s Biswakarma Electrical for effecting service connection but due to local objection, they could not do so for which the O.P. asked the complainant to submit ‘way leave permission’ but the complainant did not submit the same.  So according to O.P., since the complainant failed to submit way leave permission, so they could not provide electric connection to the complainant.  Regarding the said allegation the complainant produced no sort of evidence to show and to prove that he at all submitted such way leave permission before the O.P.  Nowhere in his petition of complaint, has the complainant claimed that he provided way leave permission to the O.P., as asked for.  Since the complainant did not submit such way leave permission, so the O.P. cannot be held responsible for such inaction on their part in not providing electric service connection in the hotel premises of the complainant and therefore it also cannot be held that the O.P. has any deficiency in service, as alleged.  Therefore it is held that the complainant has failed to prove that the O.P. has any deficiency in service on their part and the petition of complaint is therefore liable to be dismissed.

All the above points are accordingly disposed of.  

In the result, the complaint case fails.

                                     Hence, it is,

                                         Ordered,

                  that the complaint case no.80/2017  is dismissed on contest but in the circumstanced without cost.

                               Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

   Dictated and Corrected by me

        Sd/-B. Pramanik.                                Sd/- S. Sarkar                                 Sd/-B. Pramanik. 

               President                                          Member                                           President

                                                                                                                            District Forum

                                                                                                                         Paschim Medinipur