C.F. CASE No. : CC/11/85
COMPLAINANT : Bimal Talukdar,
S/o Late Pandit Talukdar,
Vill. 5 No. Jugpur, P.S. Nakashipara,
Dist. Nadia, Pin - 741126
OPPOSITE PARTY : The Station Manger,
Bethuadahari,
West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd.
P.O. Bethuadahari,
P.S. Nakashipara, Dist. Nadia
PRESENT : SHRI KANAILAL CHAKRABORTY PRESIDENT
: SHRI SHYAMLAL SUKUL MEMBER
: SMT JHUMKI SAHA MEMBER
DATE OF DELIVERY
OF JUDGMENT : 29th May, 2012
: J U D G M E N T :
In brief, the case of the complainant is that as per his application, quotation was issued by the OP on 13.11.06 and subsequently, quotation was issued on 29.11.06. He deposited the quotation amount, but OP did not give electric connection to his premises. So he moved before the Hon’ble High Court against the OP vide WP No. 26655(W) of 2006 dtd. 09.04.07 and as per order of the Hon’ble High Court he arranged police to maintain peace while the electricity connection was given to him by the OP by giving the cost and charge to the police by him. He further submits that Dipak Mondal and his associates created disturbances for giving connection to him by the OP. Then he claimed compensation of Rs. 50,000/- from the OP on 24.11.08 while Dipak Mondal and other wished to get electric connection from his post. He thereafter, filed another WP No. 32241 (W) of 2008 before the Hon’ble High Court against the OP which is still pending. He intimated about this WP to the OP. In spite of that the OP issued quotation to Dipak Mondal for giving connection. On 08.02.11 some employees of the OP hung angle and wire of electricity upon the premises and gave connection to Dipak Mondal from the disputed pole of the petitioner without his permission. So he has filed this case praying for compensation of Rs. 50,000/- from the OP.
OP electricity authority 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 his submission that some local people raised obstruction to give connection to the complainant. He has also stated that from his office record it is available that the connection line of Dipak Mondal was effective on 21.11.04 being consumer No. K-09147. So it is available that his connection was given prior to filing application by this complainant. So no question of giving connection to Dipak Mondal from the pole of the complainant does arise. This OP is always ready to effect electric connection on the premises of the complainant which he failed to execute due to the local obstruction. So the complainant has no cause of action to file this case and the same is liable to be dismissed.
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 complaint along with the annexed documents filed by the complainant and the written version filed by the OP and also after hearing the arguments on both sides, it is available on record that this complainant originally prayed for electric connection and quotation was issued in his favour. He accordingly deposited the quotation amount on 02.05.06. From the petition of complaint at Para-5, it is available that electric connection was given to the premises of the petitioner by the OP electricity authority with the help of police the cost of which was paid by the complainant himself. From the petition of complaint, we find that the main allegation of the complainant is that the OP electricity authority gave electric connection to one Dipak Mondal from the electric pole belonging to him without his permission and for this reason he has prayed for compensation of Rs. 50,000/- from the OP.
In this connection OP electricity authority has filed the Electric Rules from which it is available that, ”Notwithstanding any amount paid by the consumer, the whole service line and terminal apparatus shall remain the property of and be maintained by the Board and the Board may alter or extend such service line for the purpose of giving supply to other consumers.” On a careful perusal of this rule, we hold that the pole from which connection was given to the complainant actually is the property of the OP electricity authority and electricity authority has every right to give connection to other consumers from that pole. In no case the pole belongs to the complainant as it was posted by the OP electricity authority. Besides this in the written version it is categorically stated by the OP electricity authority that the electric connection was given to Dipak Mondal on 21.11.04 whose connection No. is K-09147. The complainant deposited the quotation money in 2006. Naturally, no question of giving electric connection to Dipak Mondal from the disputed pole does arise. In his petition of complaint as well as examination-in-chief he has claimed damage of Rs. 50,000/- which he placed before the OP on 24.11.08. Considering the facts of this case, we find no basis on this demand of this complainant. Complainant has agitated about filing of WP No. 32241 (W) of 2008. On the side of the complainant one computer issued report is filed from the Hon’ble High Court which shows that this WP was dismissed. Ld. lawyer for the complainant also submits that this WP was also dismissed. Even in the petition of complaint it is not specifically stated by the complainant that he deposited Rs. 50,000/- for the disputed pole before the OP electricity authority. If that amount is paid by him, still the pole belongs to the OP electricity authority as per electric rule and not to the petitioner.
In view of the above discussions and after hearing the arguments on both sides our considered view is that the complainant has no cause of action to file this case. So he is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for. In result the case fails.
Hence,
Ordered,
That the case, CC/11/85 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OP without any cost.
Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.
