Hon’ble Sri N.K.Sarker (President)

The complainant had deposited service connection charges and security money for getting supply of electricity at her residence which she inherited from her husband. Even after lapse of considerable time and advocates’ notice connection has not been given. Hence the case, 

OP denied the allegation and has contended that connection could not be given because of resistance and objection raised by one Satya Sadhan Mahato who pleaded land dispute which is sub judice. Pleading no negligence on their part prayer for dismissal has made.

Only point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for.

Decision with reason:

Admittedly, the complainant after inheriting the home stead applied for getting electric connection there and deposited HSC of Rs. 400/-, SD Rs. 336/- and quotation money by different receipts. Therefore, the complainant is found to have done all those she was to do as per rules.

It is the specific contention of the O.P. that repeated attempt to extend electric connection to the complainants’ house has turned futile because of objection and resistance offered by one Satya Sadhan Mahato. It is further contended that there was land dispute which is sub judice. All these were made known to the complainant requesting to settle down the dispute so that service connection may be given. But against that lawyer’s notice was given to them.

The O.P. did not file any documents that there was really any land dispute which is sub-judice and also did not refer any material showing even prima faci authority of Staya Sadhan Mahato to raise objection against extending service connection to the complainant.

Curious enough to note that the O.P. in para 13 of the W/V submits that as per plot information received from BL & LRO the plot no. 1716 of Mouza Rangunidih stands in the name of Jogindar Karmakar. It is also found that husband of the complainant purchase land from said plot no. 1716 of said mouza by a Regd Kobala (vide Annex 1). There is absolutely no material to suggest that said Satyasadhan Mahato has any interest in said plot or has land adjoining to the land of the complainant. So we find absolutely no ground enabling said Mr. Mahato to raise any objection against extending service connection to the complainant. We also do not find any reason on the part of the O.P. to care such objection raised by Mr. Mahato. Here, we find no justified ground for the O.P. to retreat from giving service connection to the complainant. There was also no ground for the O.P. to take cognizance of the resistance offered by Mr. Mahato. Here lies the deficiency on the part of the O.P. which was not insurmountable.

Since the complainant is legally entitled to have service connection at her residence unauthorized resistance cannot stand in the way. Accordingly, the petition of complaint is liable to be allowed. Hence,                                 

ORDERED

That the petition of complaint be and the same is allowed on contest. The O.P. is directed to extend service connection, as applied for by the complainant, to her house within 15 days from the date of this order failing which punitive damage @ Rs. 200/- (Rs. Two hundred) only per day shall be imposed upon the O.P. and if such amount is realized would be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid account bearing No. 34735771817 of SBI, Purulia Branch.

If necessary the O.P. is at liberty to avail of police help from the local P.S. to implement the order of this Forum on the strength of this order.

Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of this case we find no reason to impose cost and compensation upon the O.Ps.

Let a copy of this judgement be supplied to the parties free of charge.

Member                                                                                       Member                                                                President