This is case for compensation.

    The complainant’s case in short is that the complainant is the consumer under the OP having consumer No.0084592. the Electric Line is of the complainant was file connected by same consumer person on 08.09.2004. The matter was informed is the electric Department on 09.09.2004. But the OP filed of provide electric connection. So the complainant filed mini generator as the son of the complainant was the secondary examinee. The electric connection has been given by the OP on 09.10.2004. Under the circumstanced the complainant prays for Rs.64,780.50/- as generator value service charge generator rent etc.

    The OP contested the case by filing a written statement whose in the delivered the material allegation case and asserts that after received up the complainant of the consumer Sri Gautam Kr. Barui the WBSEB went to restore the power supply in his premises but could not restore the power supply in his premises due to physical resistance of the neighbour and after that, officer in charge Tamluk was regard to provide police assistance to WBSEB personal vide memo no. TES/05/652 Dt. 10.09.2004 and the connection was finally restored on 09.10.2004 with police protection. Being OP satisfied with the activities of the WBSEB perusal, consumer submitted a letter on 11.10.2004. Under the circumstances, the OP rays for dismissed of the case with compensation costs.

Points for decision

1. Is the case maintainable?
2. To the complainant on consumer under the OP?
3. Is thus any deficiency in service to ant of the OP?
4.  Is the complainant entitled of get any relief and prayed for?

Decision

                     Points not 1-4- All the points are taken up W-getter as they are with linked. It is admitted by the OP that the complainant is a consumer under him. So this point’s need not by dismissed further. It is admitted by both the parties there was electric disconnection caused by pass on 8.09.2004. Kit is also the case of both the parties that are complainant lodged by the complainant with the OP for re-connection on 09.09.2004. The OP submitted that he impugned the police for police assistance on 10.09.2004. Prior what the personals on W.B.W.E.B. went for reconnection at the spot received the complainant, due to physical resistance by the neighbor they returned. Naturally it took same time to have the police assistance. The connection was given on 09.10.2004 ie by case monthly of disconnection. The case not be said in ordinance delay in genuine re connection and that was sufficient reason for such delay. This was not demand by the complainant as and when he issued and utter of thanks to the OP on 11.10.2004 Ext 1. Considering the above discussion we can firmly say that there is not any deficiency in service on the part of the OP and the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for. The decision cited by the Ld. Advocate on behalf of the complainant reported in CPR 2005(1) P. 552 is not application in the intent case as in that case mentioned in CPR that was unreason able delay in restoration of delivery supply. But in this case the delay is mostly reasonable. More over the complainant issued a center of Tamluk with OP for this performance of re-connection. Thereafter this case filed by the complainant is not disable rather letter say evil of the complainant which requires to the condemned. Thus these points are disposed or accordingly.

                         Hence Order

     That the case be and the same is dismissed and contest against the OP.