Complainant’s case, briefly stated, is that he applied for a domestic electric service connection vide application no. 2000017157 before the OP. Accordingly, the OP conducted a spot enquiry and subsequently accepted quotation money vide receipt nos. 13131 and 13132 both dt. 14-06-2011. However, till date the OP has not effected service connection to his residence. Hence the instant case praying for relief as per prayer of the complaint.
In support of his contention the complainant has filed photocopies of several documents viz Money Receipts issued by the OP in favour of the complainant, Quotation issued by the OP, Application form submitted to the OP etc. and a letter of Lady Member, Narayanpur No. 1 Gram Panchayat, Byabattarhat (East).
The OP contested the case truly by filing written version and Written Notes of Argument and also took a positive part in the hearing. By their written version, the OP denied all the material allegations of the complainant and stated inter alia that their men went to effect the service connection to the premises of the complainant. However, owing to strong local resistance, they could not effect such connection. Accordingly the OP, vide their letter dt. 19.01.2012, advised the complainant to resolve the problem. Unfortunately, instead of resolving the problem with local people, the complainant filed the instant case. Hence, they prayed for summary dismissal of the instant case.
The OP also filed photocopies of several documents – Field Report submitted by Mahakali Engg. Works who was entrusted with the job to erect PCC pole, letter issued to complainant dt. 19-01-2012.
Points for consideration
- Whether the complainant is a consumer under the OP?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as sought for?
Decisions with reasons
Point nos. 1 &2:
These two points are taken up together for the convenience of discussion.
Admittedly, the complainant is a consumer under the OP. That apart, having regard to the materials on record we also feel that the complainant is a consumer under the OP.
We have carefully gone through the entire documents and materials on record submitted by the parties, considered the submission of ld. Advocates of both sides, as also the written Notes on Argument.
It appears from the field report submitted by the agency appointed by the OP to execute the job that they could not erect PCC pole due to strong local resistance. However, fact remains that OP issued their quotation upon verification of the feasibility of effecting such connection to the premises of the complainant. Therefore, while they have accepted the quotation money from the complainant, they cannot escape their liability to execute the job at this stage. There is nothing on record to suggest that the objectors had obtained any injunction order from a competent court of law or they have any legal right to resist such connection. Therefore, in our considered view, such objection has got no legal force. In any case, the OP is always at liberty to seek the help of police administration, if so advised, in case they encounter any problem while performing their lawful duty. Moreover, during the course of argument, ld. advocate for the OP also expressed their eagerness to effect service connection to the premises of the complainant with police help. Accordingly, we direct the OP to effect the service connection to the premises of the complainant without any further delay.
The complainant has accused the OP of gross deficiency in service. However, there is no denying the fact that the OP did try to effect the service connection to the premises of the complainant and when they got resistance, they informed the matter of local objection to the complainant promptly for taking remedial steps. Therefore, we do not see any deficiency in service on the part of the OP as alleged by the complainant. Accordingly, the complainant is not entitled to get any monetary relief.
These two points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, it is
Ordered
that the CC complaint no. 04/2012 be and the same is allowed in part on contest against the OP. The OP is directed to effect service connection to the premises of the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order with police help, if necessary. In case the OP fails to comply with this order, the complainant is at liberty to execute this order in accordance with law in which case the OP will have to pay fine @ Rs. 50/- per diem to the complainant from the date of this order till compliance.
Parties do bear their respective costs.
Dictated and corrected
by me
President
S.S. Ali A.K. Bhattacharyya
Member President
