DATE OF FILING : 04-05-2012.
DATE OF S/R : 06-06-2012.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 05-12-2012. .
Sri Debasis Pradhan,
son of late Chittaranjan Pradhan,
residing at Bankra Mishrapara
( Jora Mandirtala ), P.O. Bankra, P.S. Domjur,
District –Howrah---------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT.
- Versus -
1. The Station Manager,
WBSEDCL, Salap Group Electricity Supply –II,
Salap, P.S. Domjur, District – Howrah,
PIN – 711409.
2. Sri Amiya Kumar Roy,
son of late Jiban Krishna Roy,
residing at Bankra Mishrapara ( Jora Mandirtala ),
P.O. Bankra, P.S. Domjur, District – Howrah,
PIN – 711403. --------------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
President : Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.
Member : Shri P.K. Chatterjee.
Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
F I N A L O R D E R
1. The instant case was filed by complainant U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986,
as amended against o.p. no. 1 alleging deficiency in service U/S 2( 1 )( g ), 2( 1 )( o ) of the C.P. Act, 1986 wherein the complainant has prayed for passing necessary direction upon the o.p. no. 1, WBSEDCL Authority for immediate effecting the new service connection at the complainant’s occupied portion old dag no. 3368, khatina no. 1495, mouza Bankra, P.S. Domjur, District – Howrah, and to restrain o.p. no. 2 from raising any obstruction against such new service connection.
2. The complainant applied for effecting new electric service connection at
his premises being dag no. 3368, khatian no. 1495, inspection was carried out against which the complainant had deposited the quotional amount on 12-08-2011 and 13-10-2011 respectively and the service connection was not effected due to objection raised by o.p. no. 2 and free access was not available to the existing premises. Finding no other alternative he has lodged this complaint before the Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of o.p. no. 1.
3. The o.p. no. 1, WBSEDCL Authority in filing written version admitted
the facts of the prayer for effecting new electric service connection, payment of quotational money, the company failed to effect the service connection as access to the complainant premises was not available and also objection raised for installation of P.C.C. Pole by the o.p. no. 2 and their associates.
5 The o.p. no. 2 by filing separate written version categorically denied all the
allegations made by the complainant rather he pointed out that a Title Suit No. 224 of 2010 of Ld. 4th Civil Judge ( Jr. Division ) over the common passage is lying pending where new service connection will be effected by means of erecting a new P.C.C. support. Cost of which had already been borne by the complainant.
6. Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :
i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. no. 1 ?
ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
7. Both the points are taken up together for consideration. In view of the submission of the ld. Lawyer of the o.p. no. 1 the positive approach of the WBSEDCL is reflected. They have no objection in effecting the new service connection if there is no resistance on the part of the 3rd party. The company is willing to effect the new service connection but the same has to be done by erecting a separate P.C.C. Pole at the so-called common passage by the WBSEDCL Authority. This important part of installation could not be achieved due to objection from the o.p. no. 2.
8. We have gone through the written version of o.p. no. 2 and viz-a-viz the decision against suit no. 224 of 2010. But the fact remains that there pendency of a civil suit between the parties cannot disentitle the complainant from praying speedy relief as per C.P. Act, 1986. In this suit the respondent has prayed the interim injunction and the same is allowed in the nature of status-que in respect of possession though the complainant ( herein the petitioner ) is a bonafide purchaser of the said property ( including common passage ) as per recorded sale of deed. So the citation cannot have any application to the instant case and the Forum has every right to give speedy relief to the complainant as per rule 3 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
9. Since the complainant completed all the technical formalities including depositing of necessary quotation money and the o.p. no. 1 are willing to effect the new service connection, the objection raised by the o.p. no. 2 cannot stand in effecting the new service connection.
Therefore, we are of the view that the complainant has a genuine demand and in view of in present position of law his demand requires to be fulfilled.
Both the points are accordingly disposed of.
In the result, the complaint succeeds.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 38 of 2012 ( HDF 38 of 2012 ) be allowed on contest against o.p. nos. 1 and dismissed against o.p. no. 2 without costs.
The O.P. nos. 1, WBSEB Authority, be directed to effect the new electric service connection after observing all technical formalities to the complainant occupied portion at the premises as mentioned in the schedule within 30 days from the date of this order.
The o.p. nos. 2 is hereby restrained from causing any disturbance during the process for effecting separate electric connection through common passage of the complainant as per schedule premises.
If there by any resistance by anyone including the o.p. no. 2 against such supply of electricity in the said common passage in the schedule premises, the o.p. no. 1, WBSEDCL Authority shall be at liberty to take necessary assistance or protection from Domjur P.S. The I/C, Domjur P.S. shall be under obligation to provide necessary assistance or protection to the men and officers of the WBSEDCL Authority for providing such supply to the complainant in case of approach made by the WBSEDCL Authority.
No order as to compensation.
The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.
