West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/147/2014

Tapas Kumar Dorga - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Station Superintendent, W.B.S.E.D.C.L. - Opp.Party(s)

20 Mar 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

 Complaint case No.147/2014                                                                                         Date of disposal: 20/03/2015                               

 BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT :  Mr. Sujit Kumar Das.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mrs. Debi Sengupta.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mr. Kapot Chattopadhyay.

  

 For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff : Mr. S.K. Jana, Advocate.

 For the Defendant/O.P.S.                       : Mr. S.K. Bhattacharjee, Advocate.                                   

          

 Tapas Kumar Dogra, S/o Haripada Dogra, At Khangardihi, P.O. Panchkuri, P.S. Kotwali, Dist.

 Paschim Medinipur, West Bengal, PIN.721150…………..Complainant

                                                           Vs.

1)The station Superintendent, Barua C.C.C., W.B.S.E.D.C.L,

2)The S.S., Barua C.C.C., W.B.S.E.D.C.L., Supply Office, P.O. Abash, Dist.Paschim Medinipur, West Bengal, PIN.721102..……………Ops.

         The case of the complainant Sri Tapas Kumar Dogra, in short, is that he made payment of Rs.412/- on 25/09/2013 against quotation dated 7/08/2013 but since then new electricity connection has not yet been given to him without any reason in spite of demand notice dated 15/10/2014.  Stating the case the complainant prays for giving direction to the OP for immediate connection with payment of compensation and litigation cost in terms of the prayer made in the petition of the complaint.

         The Op contested the case by filling written objection challenging that the case is not maintainable for want of cause of action and the same is bad for defect of parties.  In this connection, the OP further stated that the complainant is misleading to the Forum by means of false statement.  The complainant enjoice electricity already supplied to him by the OP.       Prior to giving connection the OP entrusted M/s. Larsen and Toubro Ltd. as the premises of the complainant is under the coverage of Rural Electricity Project and the same was duly notified to the complainant.  So, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP.

          Upon the case of both parties the following issues are framed.

Contd…………………P/2

 

 

                                                             - ( 2 ) –

 

Issues:

1)Whether the case is maintainable in its present from?

2)Whether the complainant has any cause of action for presentation of this petition of complaint?

3)Whether the complainant is entitled for getting relief as prayed for.?

 

Decision with reasons

Issue Nos.1 to 3:

              All the issues are taken up together for discussion as those are interlinked each other for the purpose of arriving at a correct decision in the dispute.

              Ld. Advocate for the complainant made his argument that the complainant has suffered for having no electricity since long days even after making requisite fees to the OP.  Thus, the complainant is merited for compensation payable by the OP.

             Strong objection raised by the Ld. Advocate representing the OP claiming that the area of the complainant is within the Rural Electricity Project and the same was duly entrusted upon a company under total contract price of Rs.55,76,09,783.00/- on account of erection of electricity line in the large of area covering the residence of the complainant.  So, there is no deficiency of service.  Thus, the case should be dismissed.

            We have carefully considered the case and it appears that the new electricity connection has been given to the complainant.  In this aspect, a quantum of delay is noticed but the same is justified on the ground that the residence of the complainant situates in such a non electricity rural area for which the OP took arrangement with a vast project cost in order to meet the public requirement for electricity in the same large area.  Thus, we do not recommend for the prayer for compensation in favour of the complainant as prayed for. 

            In view of the facts and circumstances, there is no valid ground for granting compensation in favour of the complainant.  Thus, the issues are disposed of accordingly.

               Hence,

                           It is Ordered,    

                                                    that the case be and the same is dismissed  on contest  without cost.

Dictated & Corrected by me

              

         President                                     Member                          Member                             President

                                                                                                                                            District Forum

                                                                                                                                       Paschim Medinipur.