Before: Hon’ble Member, Debi Sengupta.
Hon’ble Member, Samaresh Kumar Mitra.
FINAL ORDER
Samaresh Kumar Mitra, Presiding Member:
The brief facts of the case are that the complainant being a consumer of O.P. has been consuming electricity through underground cable from the post on the west side of the Municipal road. Presently the complainant has taken electricity through overhead connection from the self same post on 02.01.2016 and the meter room was constructed on the west part of his property. Two meters no. 0464453 & 1683727 have been removed from the old existing position and one meter shifted to new meter room. Another meter was installed on 17.02.2016 after payment of Rs. 2,050/-. But, unfortunately, CESC Ltd. having received charges of Rs. 12,786/- on 24.12.2015 for getting power through overhead line in lieu of underground cable line including removal/ disconnection of cable line, did not remove the existing underground cable stretched upto the courtyard and remains unsafe. As a result the living of complainant became unsafe and any casualty may happen at any time as the current flows through the cable line. The complainant wrote a letter to the O.P. No. 2 stating that risky living in his house for nonremoval of underground cable. But the O.P. did not response although he acknowledged the said letter. So he wrote another letter to OP No. 2 stating all facts including disconnection of the current in the cable line being a part of CESCs work on 12.07.2016. But this time the OP also remained silent although he received the said letter. So he filed the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for a direction upon the OP for removal of underground cable from the premises of the complainant, compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- for mental sufferings and a sum of Rs. 50,000/- for cost.
OP appeared by filing written version denied the allegation as leveled against them and averred that it is not correct that living in his house becomes risky or current flows in the cable line or disconnection is a part of CESC work. The allegation is false and baseless.
Complainant filed evidence on affidavit which is nothing but replica of complaint petition so it is needless to discuss.
OP No. 1 & 2 filed affidavit in chief in which they stated that supply of overhead connection from said post to the petitioner on 02.01.2016 is nothing but normal work of licensee, CESC Ltd. The place of meter room is chosen by the consumer and ultimately checked and approved by the main of CESC Ltd. after carrying out inspection at the premises. Shifting of two meters at the request of the complainant and convenience of the complainant and the requisite charges for such shifting according to the regulation are payable by the consumer to CESC Ltd. The disconnection and de- energisation of the underground cable line has been done at the time of shifting of the service and giving overhead connection and it is false that CESC Ltd. did not remove any underground cable line stretched upto the courtyard of the petitioner and that remains unsafe and in secured for lives of inmates.
They also denied the notice served upon them. So the compensation and cost prayed for mental suffering of the complainant and deficiency in service of the CESC Ltd. is not tenable in the eye of law. The allegation of deficiency of service is false and without basis.
Argument advanced by the parties heard in full, both sides files written notes of argument which are taken into consideration for passing final order.
Under the pleadings of both parties following issues are made :-
- Whether the complainant is a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
- Whether this Forum has territorial/ pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case.
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party.
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for.
Decisions with reasons:-
Issue No. 1
From the materials on record it is transparent that the complainant is a consumer of the Opposite Parties as provided by the spirit of Section 2 (1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Complainant being a customer of the OP is consuming electricity for a prolonged period which is admitted by the OP. So he is entitled to get service from the service provider, i.e. OP CESC Ltd.
Issue No. 2
Both the complainant and Opposite Parties are resident /carrying on business within the district of Hooghly. The complaint valued within Rs. 20,00,000/-, limit of this Forum. So this Forum has territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case.
Issue No. 3
The complainant being a consumer is consuming electricity supplied by OP, CESC Ltd. The point of dispute cropped up in between the parties when the OP failed to disconnect the underground cable line stretched upto the courtyard of the complainant at the request of the complainant. According to the complainant the live underground cable line seems to be dangerous for the living inmates of his house. As a result he wrote letters to the OP No. 2. But OP No. 2 pit no bid at the utterance of the complainant. So getting no alterative the complainant filed the instant complaint before this Forum for getting redressal as prayed in the prayer portion of the complaint.
The OP in his written version only denied the allegations leveled against them, but he could not averred anything to resist the allegation of the complainant. But in the evidence on affidavit and in the written argument the OP denied that underground cable line has not removed and the cable line is lying. There is no apprehension of any casualty from alleged underground cable line and there is no question of suffering from mental agony or harassment.
They changed the electric service line from the underground mode to overhead mode from the same electric post installed on the west side of municipal road at the newly constructed meter room on the western part of the premises and they have done the work in accordance with the rules at the cost of the complainant. So they have completed their work for which they have charged money and there is no question of deficiency of service on the part of the licensee company.
After perusing the case record and document it appears that OP performed the scheduled work of the complainant after getting appropriate charge from the complainant. But fact remains that complainant is assailing throughout the complaint petition that the disconnected underground wire is still alive and flowing current as a result he is feeling unsafe and apprehend any casualty may occur. But the OP denied in his evidence that they have disconnected the power in the underground cable while they erected power from the post to the premises of the complainant. It is the bounden duty on the part of the OP to secure the safety of the complainant while providing power in the premises of its consumers. If the complainant feels unsecured and apprehends of casualty then it is the duty of the OP to disconnect the underground power connection of the complainant.
So, this Forum is in the considered opinion that a mere direction to the OP to disconnect the live wire may settle the dispute of the complainant.
Issue No. 4
The discussion made hereinbefore we have no hesitation to come in a conclusion that the complainant able to prove his case and the OP is under liability to perform the work properly so that the consumer may remain safe from any casualty.
ORDER
Hence it is ordered that the complaint case No. 149/2016 is allowed in part against the Opposite Party with a litigation cost amounting to Rs. 5,000/-.
The Opposite Party is directed to disconnect the underground cable that leads to the courtyard of the complainant from the service point and ensure the safety of the complainant within 45 days from passing this order.
At the event of failure to comply with the order the O.P. No. 1 & 2 shall pay cost @ Rs. 50/- for each days delay if caused on expiry of the aforesaid 45 days by depositing the accrued amount if any, in the Consumer Legal Aid Account.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their Ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/ sent by ordinary Post for information & necessary action.
Dictated and corrected by me.Samaresh Kr. Mitra, Member.
