Complainant’s case in short is that the complainant applied for electric connection on 18.07.2008 from the OP1 in respect of his room as mentioned in para 2 of the complaint. As per quotation being no. 23685 (KGT/18/7195) dtd. 12.12.2008 issued by the OP1 the complainant paid security deposit of Rs.650/- to the office of OP1 on 09.02.2009. However, in spite of several requests by the complainant to the OP, no such electric connection has been given to the complainant in question, hence the instant case.
The OP 1 contested the case by filing written version, wherein all the allegations made against them have been denied. It is stated therein that one Shri Ranjit Sasmal raised objection against the service connection of the petitioner from the existing P.C.C pole as the said pole was installed in his land for which the connection in question could not be effected, hence they prayed for dismissal of this case.
Points for consideration
- Whether there is any deficiency on the part of OP1 for not effecting the service connection to the petitioner as applied for?
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to any relief as sought for?
Decision with reasons
The Ld. advocate appearing on behalf the petitioner submitted that the OP1 intentionally did not supply the service connection of electricity to the petitioner even after observing all required formalities for such connection as asked for by the OP1 including deposit of security money long ago.
The Ld. Advocate for the OP1 opposed the argument advanced on behalf of the complainant, with contention that OP1 was and is always ready to give such service connection in favour of the complainant but it could not be effected owing to strong resistance from one Shri Ranjit Sasmal.
We have carefully gone through the Xerox copies of the documents filed by the complainant and considered the submission of the Ld. Advocates of both sides.
Admittedly, the complainant deposited the security deposit as per quotation of the OP1 long ago and request are made by complainant to effect the service connection. The complainant has also filed Xerox copies of documents as to his right over the premises where he sought for service connection.
To our mind mere objection without any cogent reason alleged to have been raised by one Shri Ranjit Sasmal cannot be a ground for non supply of service connection in favour of the complainant, when all the required formalities have been fulfilled by the complainant. In our view, therefore, the failure on the part of the OP1 to effect the service connection sufficiently indicates that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP1, for such non-supply of service connection in favour of the complainant. That being so, the complainant is entitled for a direction as regards supply of electric service connectionas sought for.
The aforesaid two points are, thus, disposed of.
Accordingly, it is,
ORDERED
that the complaint case being no. CC-19/2011 be and the same is allowed on contest in part. OP1 is directed to effect service connection within 30 days from the date of communication of this order. OP1 is further directed to pay litigation cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant within 30 days from this day, in default, complainant shall have liberty to execute this order in accordance with law in which case OP1 will be liable to pay fine @ Rs.50/- per dien from this day till realization.
Dictated and corrected
by me
President
S.S. Ali A.K. Bhattacharyya
Member President
