Complainant files hazira. OP is absent as usual.
Today is fixed for order.
Brief facts of the complainant’s case are that he applied for an electric service connection at his residence by paying Rs. 210/- on 05-03-2010 following which men of OP visited the spot 2/3 times and ultimately issued quotation on 17-05-2010 asking the complainant to deposit Rs. 5,401/- (Rs. 4,751 + 650) towards security deposit and Service Connection Charges which he paid on 15-06-2010 against receipt. Besides he had to incur substantial incidental expenses for getting service connection to his residence. However, despite payment of requisite money as per their demand, the OP arbitrarily sent a letter dt. 22-12-2010 intimating about the requirement of one additional service pole, which he cannot afford. Hence the instant complaint seeking relief as per details mentioned in the petition. To strengthen his case, the complainant submitted Examination-in-Chief and other documents as per firisti.
It appears from the copy of Postal AD card that notice was served upon the OP on 03-03-2011. However, despite receipt of notice OP did not turn up. Hence, the matter is taken up for ex-parte hearing.
Points for consideration
- Whether the instant case is maintainable in its present form?
- Whether there is any deficiency on the part of the OPs?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as claimed for?
Decision with reasons
Point no. 1:
By virtue of payment of requisite fees as per the demand of OP, the complainant has become a consumer under the OP. Thus, the case is maintainable in its present form.
This point thus answers in favour of the complainant.
Point nos. 2 & 3:
Both these points are taken up together for the brevity of discussion; moreover, they are inter-connected.
Ld. lawyer for the complainant contended that although he paid requisite money including the cost of service pole as per the demand made by the electricity board on 15-06-2010, the OP instead of effecting service connection to his house after a lapse of more than 6 months, came up with a demand for a fresh service pole which he cannot afford because of his financial constraints. Hence, he prayed for giving directing upon the OP to provide electric connection to his house and other consequential relief as per details given in the petition.
We have carefully gone through the documents on record and exhaustively considered the averment of ld. lawyer for the complainant.
Evidently, the complainant applied for a service connection to his residence on 05-03-2010 by depositing a sum of Rs. 210/- with OP. Subsequently, he deposited another sum of Rs. 5,401/- on 15-06-2010 towards Security Deposit and cost of H.S.C. It transpires from the petition of complainant that the OP issued their quotation following site visit of their officials for 2/3 times. There is no reason to disbelieve him since the rules makes it obligatory on the part of the OP board to issue quotation upon verification of feasibility aspects on spot. Thus, it can reasonably be presumed that the inspection team submitted their report on being satisfied about the feasibility of such connection and clearly quantifying the nos. of service poles required for effecting service connection to the premises of the complainant and quotation was issued by the OP on the basis of such expert report. Against this backdrop while a prospective consumer has already deposited the specified amount, it is highly unethical and quite unbecoming, specially of a PSU, to flip flop and ask a consumer to fork out additional money in this manner and as such, such illogical demand is not acceptable.
Being the distribution licensee, it is the statutory duty of the OP board to penetrate into every nook and corner of the area of his supply and develop proper infrastructure therein. Therefore, it is quite unfair on the part of OPto pass the buck and compel a helpless consumer to bear the cost of service pole which comes for a premium.
By all accounts, therefore, deficiency on the part of the OP is quite palpable for which in our considered view, the complainant is entitled to get relief – a compensation of Rs.2000/- together with litigation cost Rs.1000/- besides getting the electric service connection at his residence without incurring any additional amount towards the cost of service pole subject to fulfillment of necessary formalities as required under the Electricity Act.
These two points thus also answer in favour of the complainant.
Hence, it is
Ordered
that the instant CC case no. 01/2011 be and the same is allowed ex-parte in part against the OP. OP is directed to effect service connection to the premises of the complainant within 45 days from the date of communication of this order without asking for the cost of any additional service pole subject to fulfillment of necessary formalities by the complainant as required under the Electricity Act failing which, they will be liable to pay fine @ Rs. 50/- per diem from the date of filing of this case till compliance. OP is also liable to pay Rs.2000/- as compensation and litigation cost Rs.1000/- to the complainant within 45 days from the date of communication of this order.
Dictated and corrected
by me
President
__________________
A. K. Bhattacharyya
President
_________________
S. S. Ali
Member
