C.F. CASE No. : CC/10/107
COMPLAINANT : Miyatan Bibi,
W/o Kalam Sk.
of Vill. Harindanga,
P.O. Matiary, P.S. Kaliganj,
Dist. Nadia.
OPPOSITE PARTY/OP : The Station Manager,
West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd.
Matiary Group Electric Supply,
at Vill. Matiary P.O. Matiary, P.S. Kaliganj,
Dist. Nadia
PRESENT : SHRI KANAILAL CHAKRABORTY PRESIDENT
: SHRI SHYAMLAL SUKUL MEMBER
DATE OF DELIVERY
OF JUDGMENT : 31st March, 2011
: J U D G M E N T :
In brief, the case of the complainant is that she has a residential house on plot No. 4032, Khatian No. 4357, Mouza No. 89, Matiary, P.S. Kaliganj. It is her further case that on 22.05.09 she submitted an application vide No. M/5597 dtd. 22.05.09 before the OP to have electric connection at her premises. The OP on 25.08.09 sent a quotation amounting to Rs. 650/- which was deposited by her before the OP on 27.08.09. But thereafter the OP did not make any arrangement to give connection at her premises though she requested time and again to the OP to give her electric connection. Thereafter, on 15.07.10 she sent a lawyer’s notice to the OP with a request to give electric connection within 15 days from the receipt of the notice. In spite of receipt of the notice the OP did not give her electric connection at her house. So having no other alternative, this case is filed by the complainant praying for the reliefs as stated in the petition of complaint.
The OP has filed a written version in this case, inter alia, stating that the case is not maintainable in its present form and nature. It is also submitted by him that as per prayer of the complainant he sent a quotation amounting to Rs. 650/- which was duly deposited by the complainant as security money. Thereafter, on 11.09.09 the employee of the OP went to the locality in order to give connection at the premises of the complainant. But due to strong resistance raised by the brother and the other relatives of the complainant, his men failed to effect electric connection at her premises. This OP waited for resettlement of the dispute between the complainant and her relatives but no information was given to him regarding that. So on 16.09.10 the OP sent a letter to the petitioner for submitting way leave, but till now that way leave is not submitted by the complainant due to which this OP is unable to give her connection though he is always ready to effect connection at her premises. In view of this the complainant has no cause of action to file this case and the same is liable to be dismissed against him.
POINTS FOR DECISION
Point No.1: Has the complainant any cause of action to file this case?
Point No.2: Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Both the points are taken up together for discussion as they are interrelated and for the sake of convenience.
On a careful perusal of the petition of the complaint and the written version filed by the OP along with the annexed documents filed by both the parties and also after hearing the arguments advanced by ld. lawyers for the parties it is available on record that admittedly, this complainant submitted an application to have electric connection before the OP at her premises and against that application the OP sent a quotation amounting to Rs. 650/- which was also deposited by the complainant on 25.08.09. The complainant’s case is that though she deposited the quotation amount, but the OP did not give her electric connection for which this case is filed. On the other hand, it is the contention of the OP that due to resistance raised by the relatives of the complainant his employees failed to give connection at the premises of the complainant. Again on 16.09.10, he sent a letter to this complainant requesting her to submit way leave certificate in order to give her connection. The copy of the letter is filed by the OP which speaks that as the relatives of the complainant raised objection so the OP men failed to give connection at the premises of the complainant and the OP requested her to submit way leave certificate in order to give her connection. On 25.06.10 the complainant sent a letter to the OP, inter alia, stating that due to objection raised by her relatives the OP men failed to give her electric connection, but as the dispute was solved so he requested the OP to give her connection. On the basis of that letter an enquiry was held by the OP men and in that report it is stated that due to resistance by the complainant’s relative connection was not given at her premises but still then that problem was not solved. On the other hand, the complainant has filed a copy of the disputed Khatian No. 4357 from which it is available that at plot No. 4032 this complainant has interest with regard to only 0.1 satak land. From this document, it is also available that on the same plot there is house which is in possession of one Najar Ali Shaikh and Kachhar Ali Shaikh. From the argument advanced by the ld. lawyer for the complainant it is revealed that still now this plot of land is unpartitioned among the complainant and the other co-sharers. It is the settled law of the electricity authority to give electric connection belonging to the complainant or any one else on a land having other co-sharers way leave is necessary if the other co-sharers raise objection to give effect electric connection. Ld. lawyer for the OP frankly submits that the OP is always ready to give connection to the complainant subject to submission of way leave by the complainant. Ld. lawyer for the complainant also submits that the complainant is ready to submit way leave to have connection.
In view of the above discussions and considering the facts of this case, we hold that there is no dispute regarding giving of electric connection to the complainant by the OP subject to submission of way leave by the complainant. So we do also hold that it is the duty of the complainant to submit way leave to the OP to have electric connection at her premises as it is established that the OP tried to give connection at the premises of the complainant, but due to resistance by her co-sharers they failed to give effect to that. So in such a situation it is the duty of the complainant to submit way leave for having new connection at her premises. Considering the facts of this case, we hold that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and therefore, we don’t pass any order as to compensation or cost of the case.
Hence,
Ordered,
That the case, CC/10/107 be and the same is decreed on contest against the OP without any cost. The OP is directed to give connection at the premises of the complainant within one month since this date of passing this judgment subject to submission of way leave by the complainant in the meantime.
Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.
