A. K. BHATTACHARYYA, PRESIDENT
The contextual facts of the case, in brief, are that the complainant applied before the OP authority for effecting domestic service connection to his premises and also paid requisite fees as per quotation issued by the OP. However, the OP, for some obscure reasons, developed cold feet and has not effected said connection to his premises causing great hardship, mental pain and agony to the complainant and his family members; hence the case for getting service connection together with some other relief as per prayer of the complaint.
In support of his contention the complainant filed photocopies of Money receipts, quotation issued by the OP, Deed stands in the name of his deceased father.
The OP contested the case truly not only by entering appearance, but also by filing written version as well as written argument and taking a positive part in the entire proceeding. By their written version, the OP denied the claim of the petitioner that there was any negligence on their part. The OP also stated that their authorized contractor, as per their direction, went to erect electric pole on 29-07-2012. However, due to strong physical resistance from one Sri Anil Kumar Maity, they could not execute their entrusted job. It is further stated by the OP that subsequently they received one written objection from said Anil Kumar Maity asking them not to effect service connection to the premises of the complainant. Accordingly, the OP denied any laches on their part and prayed for summary dismissal of the instant case.
In support of their contention the OP submitted photocopies of letter issued by their enlisted contractor M/s Jana Civil Engg., objection letter of Anil Maity, Gazette Notification dated 31-05-2010 issued by WBERC.
Points for discussion
- Whether the complainant is a consumer under the OP?
- Whether there is any negligence/deficiency in service on the part of the OP?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for?
Decisions with reasons
Point no. 1, 2 & 3:
All these interlocked points are taken up collectively for the sake of convenience of discussion.
We have carefully gone through the materials/documents on record including WNA and heard the submission put forth on behalf of ld. lawyers of both sides at length.
Admittedly, the complainant deposited earnest money with the OP for the purpose of effecting service connection to his residential house. Therefore, there can be no dispute as regards the status of the complainant as a bona fide consumer of the OP. There is also no dispute as regards jurisdiction as well as filing of this case within the limitation period as enunciated under the Consumer Protection Act. Thus, we hold that the instant case is maintainable in its present form.
It is contended by the OP that they failed to effect service connection to the premises of the complainant owing to strong objection of one Sri Anil Kumar Maity. First of all, it is not the case of the OP that the objector, Sri Anil Kumar Maity obtained any injunction order from a competent Court of Law debarring the complainant from getting service connection. It goes to show that there is no legal bar to effect service connection to the premises of the complainant.
It appears from the undated objection letter of said Sri Anil Kr. Maity that he is a co-sharer of undivided plot in question. It is the settled position of law that all co-owners have equal rights and co-ordinate interest in the property though their shares which may be either fixed or indeterminate. Every co-owner has a right to enjoyment and possession equal to that of the other co-owner and co-owners. Thus, the objection of Sri Anil Kumar Maity is not tenable under the law.
Above all, there is every reason to presume that, as required under the Electricity Act, before issuing quotation, the OP made thorough scrutiny about the feasibility of effecting service connection to the premises of the complainant. Thus, while the OP issued quotation in favour of the complainant and accepted the same from him, they were/are under obligation to effect service connection to the premises of the complainant within the stipulated time frame as laid down under the Electricity Act 2003, which they have not done. This clearly points out deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
Taking into consideration the importance of electricity in our daily life, there is no denying the fact that it requires a holistic approach on the part of the distribution licensee to provide service connection to a prospective customer. If someone prevents public servants from discharging statutory duties, the Authority has every right to take legal recourse against the objector. It is indeed strange that despite facing resistance from said Anil Kumar Maity, the OP or its enlisted contractor, M/s Jana Civil Engg. did not lodge any police complaint against Sri Anil Kr. Maity. In the circumstances, we deem it imperative to direct the OP to effect service connection to the premises of the complainant with the assistance of police administration, if needed.
That being the position, the complainant is entitled to get relief as to direction to give electric service connection to the premises of the complainant.
These three points are thus decided in favour of the complainant.
. Hence, it is
ORDERED
that the instant consumer 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 with police help, if required within 45 days from the date of communication of this orderi.d. the complainant is at liberty to execute the order in accordance with the law in which case, the OP shall be liable to pay fine @ Rs. 50 per diem from the date of filing of this case till compliance of this order in toto.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to cost.
Dr. S Dutta A.K. Bhattacharyya
Member President
