Sri Radhashyam Mondal,

son of late Jahar Mondal,

village – Gazipur, P.O. Bargarchumuk, P.S. Shyampur,

District – Howrah,

PIN – 711312.-------------------------------------------------------------------  COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

1.         The Station Manager,

Garchumuk Group Electric Supply,

WBSEDCL, Ulughata,  Shyampur,

District – Howrah,

PIN – 711312.

2.         The Station Manager,

WBSEDCL, Khurigachi, 58 Gate,

District – Howrah,

PIN – 711312.

3.         The  Chief  Engineer,

C.R.M. Cell, Bidhannagar, Block – DJ, Sector – II,

Kolkata – 700091. -------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.

                                                P    R    E     S    E    N     T

President     :     Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.

Member      :      Shri P.K. Chatterjee.

      Member       :     Smt. Jhumki Saha.     

                                                 F  I   N   A    L       O    R   D    E     R

1.               The instant case filed by the complainant  U/S 12 of the C .P. Act, 1986 ( as amended up to date ) against o.p. no. 1 alleging deficiency in service U/S 2(1)(g), 2(1)(o) of the  C.P. Act, 1986 where the complainant prays for direction upon the o.p. no. 1 for effecting new electric service connection at his schedule premises together with compensation and litigation costs as the o.p. no. 1 in spite of the observing the necessary formalities including deposition of service connection charges and security money has been deferring the supply of electricity for want of necessary service connection materials.

2.               The brief facts of the case is that the complainant applied on 18-01-2012 before the o.p. no. 1 vide application no. 1000590789 for new  connection at his scheduled premises followed by deposition of quotati8onal money against service connection charges and security money on the dated 27-11-2012. In spite of repeated requests made by the complainant through his advocate the o.p. no. 1 did not take any positive action for effecting the connection and kept mum. Being aggrieved the complainant lodged the instant complaint before the  Forum seeking relief and compensation. Hence the case.

3.               The o.ps. WBSEDCL vide their written version admitted the facts for deposition of quotational money and connection could not be effected in schedule time for want of requisite material i.e. PCC Pole and fittings material and finally the said new connection was effected  on 11-11-2013 and accordingly the complainant is not entitled to get any relief and compensation against his aforesaid prayer.

4.               Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :

            i)          Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps?

ii)                  Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief and compensation as prayed for? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

5.               Both the points are taken up together for consideration. Perused the evidence, documents adduced by both the parties.   Considered.

6.               No doubt it is a admitted facts that the present complainant is a bonafide consumer having deposited the quotational money against the new service connection on 27-11-2012 with observing all other technical formalities.

7.               The point of dispute is that the complainant ins pite of deposition of service connection charges and security deposit money did not favour for effect the service connection charge in time by the o.p. no. 1 on the plea that the necessary PCC Pole including fittings and fixtures were not available at that particular time.

8.               It is a pertinent point that when the complainant completed all the formalities including deposition of quotational money in time, it is prime duty of o.p. no. 1 to effect the service connection in the schedule time as per WBERC Regulations. The o.p. no. 1 effected the service connection after lapsing 1 ½ year i. e. 11-11-2013 which tantamount gross deficiency in service resultant the consumer suffered a lot together with harassment caused mental agony for unnecessary delay for effecting new service connection.

9.               Accordingly we hold o.p. n. 1 to be deficient in service and complainant is entitled to get relief to some extent in the nature of compensation for mental agony together with litigation costs.

Both the points are accordingly disposed of.

      Hence,

                                    O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No.  362  of 2013 ( HDF  362 of 2013 )  be  allowed on contest with costs against o.p. no. 1 and without cost to the rest.  

      The O.P. no. 1  be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for prolonged harassment and mental agony together with a cost of Rs. 1,000/- as litigation.

      The entire amount of  Rs. 6,000/- will be paid within 30 days from the date of this order in default penal interest @ 9% p.a. will be levied till realization of the full amount.  

      The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.

      Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.  

  (   P. K. Chatterjee )                                                         

  Member,  C.D.R.F.,Howrah.