West Bengal

Birbhum

CC/14/74

Sri Jagannath MondalS/O Lt Dwijapada Mondal - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Station Manager, WBSEDCL - Opp.Party(s)

22 Mar 2016

ORDER

The complainant Sri Jagannath Mondal filed a petition U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In a nutshell the case is that the complainant applied for electric service connection for his residential house before the Station Manager, WBSEDCL, Labpur, Birbhum (the O.P.). The O.P made spot enquiry and issued a quotation. Accordingly the complainant deposited the quotation amount. But the complainant could not get the electric service connection. The complainant requested the O.P and visited the office of the O.P several times. But the O.P did not pay any heed. The complainant also submitted a petition before the R.G.R.O, Suri, Birbhum and a notice was issued to the complainant requesting him to appear before the authority. Accordingly the complainant appeared before the said authority for hearing. But no fruitful result came out from that hearing and the complainant did not get the service connection till now. This act of the O.P is deficiency in service and finding no other alternative the complainant filed this case.

The complainant prayed for reliefs as per complaint.

The O.P has contested the case by filing written version and stated that the case is barred U/s 24A of C.P. Act.1986. The O.P also stated that nobody made objection during the spot enquiry in connection with the complainant’s application. So, the quotation was issued. But Biswanath Mondal, the brother of the complainant made objection when the O.P attempted to effect the electric connection in complainant’s house as the service cable have to draw over his land and there is no other way to effect that service connection. The O.P also stated that as per norms of the WBSEDCL the way leave problem and land dispute should be solved by the applicant. But the complainant did not do the same. The complainant had not submitted the way leave permission as per the terms and condition of the quotation. So, the O.P could not affect the service connection. The O.P also stated that the O.P is ready to effect electric service connection provided way leave problem is solved by the complainant. The O.P prayed for dismissal of the case with cost.

The complainant filed affidavit in chief and some documents. The O.P has not adduced any evidence. Ld. Lawyer of both sides filed written arguments and made oral argument also.

On careful perusal of the complaint and other material on record the following points are pertinent to discuss to determine the case.

POINTS

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer U/s 2(1)(d)(ii) of C.P. Act, 1986?
2. Whether the instant case is barred by limitation U/s 24(A) of the C.P. Act. 1986?
3. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief or reliefs as prayed for?

DECISION WITH REASONS

Point No.1: Evidently it is clear that the complainant applied for electric connection for his residential house and deposited earnest money amounting to Rs. 200 vide money receipt Sl. No. B/0262864 dated 13.04.2011. Accordingly the O.P issued a quotation vide No. 5000065446/Quot/03 dated 11.10.2011 after spot enquiry. The complainant also deposited the quotation amount of Rs. 246 as security deposit vide money receipt Sl. No. C.7883200 dated 21.10.2011 and Rs. 200 as house service connection charge vide money receipt Sl. No. C.7883201 dated 21.10.2011. So, it is clear that the complainant applied for electric connection and deposited the quotation amount in proper way and he is a consumer of the O.P U/s 2(1)(d)(ii) of C.P. Act 1986.

Point No. 2: It is clear from the documents that the complainant applied for electric connection for his house in the middle of the year 2011 but the O.P did not affect the service connection. After that the complainant requested the O.P several times for that connection vide letter dated 30.08.2011, 30.04.2012 and 16.10.2012 but the O.P did not pay any heed. Then the complainant filed a petition before the R.G.R.O, Suri Birbhum for that connection on 24.03.2014 and hearing arose before that authority on 30.05.2014 and no fruitful result came from that hearing. So, the cause of action arisen from 30.05.2014 and the complainant filed this case on 08.07.2014 i.e. within the two year from date on which the cause of action has arisen. So, the instant case is not barred U/s 24(A) of the C.P. Act 1986.

Point No. 3 and 4: Both points are interrelated to each other and taken up together for discussion for the sake of convenience and brevity.

It is admitted that the complainant applied for electric connection and deposited the quotation amount in proper way. At the time of trial the O.P stated that the complainant has not submitted any way leave permission. So, the O.P could not affect the service connection. The complainant also admitted it and stated that the O.P made spot enquiry and after satisfaction the O.P has issued the quotation. So, there is no need of no objection certificate. In reply the O.P also admitted that the quotation was issued after​ making spot enquiry and at that time nobody made objection but when the O.P attempted to effect the electric connection in complainant’s house, Biswanath Mondal, the brother of the complainant raised strong objection as the service cable has to draw over his land and there is no other way to effect that service connection. The O.P again stated that as per the terms and conditions of the quotation the way leave problem and land dispute should be solved by the applicant and accordingly the O.P has intimated the complainant to solve the way leave problem and to submit the way leave certificate as per given proforma. But the complainant did not submit the same. So, the O.P could not affect the e/connection.

On verifying the terms and conditions mentioned in the quotation it is clear that the complainant has to submit the way leave permission but admittedly the complainant has not submitted the same. So, at first the complainant has to submit the way leave permission. However, we think that since the O.P has issued quotation in the name of the complainant and received the quotation amount from him without raising any question of non-filing of way leave permission, the O.P is bound to effect the electric connection in complainant’s house provided the complainant submits the way leave permission. The complainant should not be deprived from service connection of electricity to his house. There is deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. Points 3 and 4 are thus decided in favour of the complainant. So, the instant case stand.

Proper fees have been paid.

            Hence, 

O R D E R E D                                        

that C.F Case No. 74/2014 be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.P.

The complainant is directed to submit the way leave permission to the O.P as soon as possible. The O.P is directed to effect the electric connection in the residential house of the complainant within one month from the date of receiving way leave permission from the complainant. The O.P is also directed to pay Rs. 1000 as litigation cost to the complainant within the above mentioned time failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to execute this order as per law and procedure.

A copy of this order be supplied to the parties each free of cost immediately.