BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER REDRESSAL FORUM
(DISTRICT FORUM)
UNOKUTI TRIPURA : KAILASHAHAR
C A S E NO. C. C. 18/8
ABDUL SALAM
son of late Abdul Jabbar,
village – Fulbarikandi
PO – Nurpur,
District - Unakoti
…......COMPLAINANT.
V E R S U S
1. Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited
Represented by the Senior Manager,
Kailashahar Electrical Sub-Division No. 1
Kailashahar, Unakoti District
…........Principal Opposite Party
2. The State of Tripura
…......Proforma Opposite Party
P R E S E N T
SHRI J. M. MURASING
PRESIDENT
DISTRICT CONSUMER REDRESSAL FORUM
UNAKOTI DISTRICT::KAILASHAHAR
A N D
SMTI. S. DEB, MEMBER
SHRI P. SINHA, MEMBER
C O U N S E L
For the complainant : Shri K. D. Sinha, Advocate &
Shri S. N. Choudhury, Advocate
For the OPs : Sri S. Deb Roy, Govt. Pleader
ORIGINAL DATE OF INSTITUTION :27-09-2018
JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON : 07-01-08-2019
J U D G M E N T
This is a complaint preferred by the complainant Abdul Salam U/S 12 of the C.P. Act against the opposite parties praying for granting compensation for Rs. 50,000/- for deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and also prayed for directing the Principal OP to reconnect the electricity line to his house.
2. The case of the complainant, as emerged from the complaint petition is that, on 07/09/2018 at about 8 am one Md. Nurul Islam, a neighbour of the complainant, forcefully and illegally disconnected the electricity connection of the complainant and accordingly, written complaint was filed with the O/C, Kailashahar PS by the complainant and the matter was also informed to the OP No. 1 with a request to take necessary action. The complainant also requested the OP No. 1 to reconnect the electricity line in his house, but no effective step was taken by the OP No. 1 to reconnect the electricity line to the house of the complainant. It is further contended in the complaint petition that on 11/09/2018 OP No. 1 forwarded a letter and informed Kailashahar Police Authority regarding the act of Nurul Islam and also endorsed copy of the same to the complainant, but when the complainant visited Kailashahar PS he came to know that as the OP No. 1 did not ask for any police help they could not help the complainant in restoration of electric line in his house. Thus, the OPs are deficient in service and because of the negligence on the part of the OPs the complainant has been suffering for want of electricity. It is also contended in the complainant petition that the complainant is a genuine consumer of the OP No.1 and he had the electricity connection in his house since the year 2001 with the knowledge of Nurul Islam and others on the same locality without any disturbance till 06/09/2018, but on 07/09/2018 Nurul Islam quite illegally cut down the electric connection from his house and since then the complainant along with his family members has been passing days being plunged in darkness. As such, the complainant has preferred the instant complaint seeking redress and also compensation against the OPs.
3. On receipt of the notice OP No. 1 & 2 appeared through learned GP and submitted joint written objection stating inter-alia that the case is not maintainable, there is no cause of action, the case is bad for non-joinder for necessary parties as Nurul Islam, who allegedly cut off the electricity connection from the house of the complainant, has not been made party. As a real fact it is contended by the OPs that as per petition of the complainant OP No. 1 arranged all preparations for connecting electric line in the house of the complainant, but due to severe forceful resistance put up by one Nurul Islam, electric line could not be connected in the house of the complainant and as such, there is no deficiency on the part of the OPs as third person resisted the OPs to reconnect the line as the electric line has been extended to the house of the complainant over the land of said Nurul Islam. As per TSECL norms in case of objection raised by anybody over whose land electric line is extended to another person's house, the consumer will be liable for this and he/she has to arrange for alternative route for extension of electric line to his/her house, but here the complainant could not arrange for alternative route for extension of electric line in his house and as such, the OPs could not reconnect the line. Under the circumstances there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs and therefore the case of the complainant being devoid of any merit should be dismissed out rightly.
4. The complainant as PW 1 has submitted evidence by way of examination in chief on affidavit evoking the facts as put down in the complaint petition and for sake of brevity the same is not repeated. During re-examination complainant caused exhibit electric bill for the period form 02/08/2018 to 01/09/2018 ( one sheet) and on identification same has been marked Exbt. 1.
During cross examination from the side of the OPs complainant stated that the staff of electric office visited his house for giving new connection, but one Nurul Islam, his neighbour, did not allow the staff of Electric Department to give connection. In cross complainant further stated that he also received letter from Electric Department that they informed the matter to the local PS and showed the Electric Department alternative way for giving connection in his house and further stated that he had not sought any redress against Nurul Islam in this case.
From the side of the Ops Sri Plaban das, Senior Manager, TSECL, Kailashahar Division No. 1 has been examined as OPW No 1. In his examination in chief Sri Das has also echoed the same in the line of written objection. During re-examination OPW 1 has caused exhibit the following:-
(i) Memo dated 25/09/2018- marked Exbt. A
(ii) Memo dated 14/09/2018- marked Exbt. B and
(iii) Memo dated 11/09/2018- marked Exbt. C
OP No 1 has been cross examined by the complainant side and during cross-examination he stated that there is one PWD Road near by the house of the complainant and there is also one by lane leading to the house of the complainant and also stated that electric line can be extended towards the house of the complainant to the nearby said by lane and that one Nurul Islam disconnected the electric line of the complainant and that their office did not take any action against said Nurul Islam. To a question put by the Court complainant stated that they reported the name of Nurul Islam to the Police authority but they did not know whether police took any action against Nazrul Islam or not. During cross OPW 1 also stated that their office did not lodge any court complaint and denied that after disconnection they intentionally reconnected the electric line to the house of the complainant.
5. The only point for adjudication in the instant case is whether the OPs are negligent and deficient in service towards the complainant for not reconnecting the electric line in the house of the complainant?
6. Heard argument of the learned Counsels of the parties. Learned Counsel Mr. Sinha appearing on behalf of the complainant submitted that the OPs have failed to discharge their duties as they did not take any step to reconnect the electric line to the house of the complainant and as such, the complainant and his family members have been suffering because of want of electricity and therefore, compensation, as prayed for by the complainant, may be granted and the OPs may also be directed to reconnect the electric line to the house of the complainant.
On the contrary, learned GP appearing for the OPs submitted that the complainant could not show/arrange for alternative route for extension of electric connection in his house. Nurul Islam over whose house the electric line has been extended to the house of the complainant has cut off the electric connection from the house of the complainant and while the staff of OP No 1 visited the complainant's house for the purpose of reconnection of electric line, Nurul Islam stood as objector and did not allow the OPs to reconnect the electric line. Therefore, there is no fault on the part of the OPs and the OPs are even ready to extend the electric connection in the house of the complainant on arrangement of alternative route and on deposition of necessary fees.
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION
7. It is admitted by the O.P.s that TSECL extended electric line to the house of the complainant. It is also admitted by the O.P.s that the complainant on 07-09-2018 by a letter informed him that on 07-09-2018 at about 8 a.m one Nurul Islam cut off the electric line from the house of the complainant. It was also informed by the complainant in the said letter that while complainant resisted Nurul Islam from cutting Electric line, he attempted to assault him but for intervention of the local people he was saved from being assaulted and the complainant sought redress from the O.P No.1. From exbt.1, electric bill drawn in favour of the complainant, it is found that complainant was a consumer of the TSECL, Kailashahar Sub-Division No.1 up to 01-09-2018. Disconnection of the electric line in the house of the complainant took place on 07-09-2018 allegedly by one Nurul Islam. So, the action towards disconnection of the electric line by Nurul Islam was supposed to be taken care of by police. The complainant in cross-examination stated that the staff of electric office visited his house for giving new connection, but one Nurul Islam did not allow the staff of Electric Department to give connection and the complainant also admitted that he had not sought any redress against Nurul Islam in this case. The electric line of the house of the complainant was not snapped by any natural calamity or for any fault of the opposite parties, but it was Nurul Islam who disconnected the electric line from the house of the complainant and in the case at hand the complainant has not made said Nurul Islam as party to the case and as such, why Nurul Islam did so remains undiscovered. The O.P in written objection and also in the evidence stated that as the electric line to the house of the complainant was extended over the land of Nurul Islam and since after disconnection of the same by said Nurul Islam when the staff of the O.P visited the house of the complainant to re-connect the electric line said Nurul Islam resisted in drawing the line and as such, the O.P could not extend electric line to the house of the complainant. The complainant could not refute this assertion of the O.P and also failed to show that electric line was not extended over the land of Nurul Islam. As per TSECL norms electric line can be extended to a consumer's house over anybody's land if there is no objection from the part of the owner of that land, but in the instant case electric line was extended to the house of the complainant over the land of Nurul Islam and during re-connection attempted by the OP No.1 he did not allow to extend the line over his house. Complainant could not submit any no objection from said Nurul Islam for extension of electric line to his house over the land of Nurul Islam. As such, It appears that there is no deficiency on the part of the O.P by not re-connecting the electric line to the house of the complainant. In the record xerox copy of no objection certificate submitted to the SDO, Electricity Office, Kailashahar by Liakat Ali, Abul Khayer, Mohi Uddin and Samsul Alam is found, wherein it is stated by them that they have no objection if electric line is extended to the house of the complainant over their lands, but no such no objection has been given by Nurul Islam. During cross-examination O.P as O.P.W-1 has stated that there is one PWD road near by the house of the complainant and there is also one by lane leading to the house of the complainant and electric line can be extended towards the house of the complainant through the near said by lane. This being the possession and taking into account no objection certificate submitted by the aforesaid three persons this FORUM is of the opinion that alternative electric line should be extended to the house of the complainant through the nearby by lane of the PWD road as per rules and regulations of the TSECL.
The point is accordingly decided.
ORDER
8. In the result, it is ordered that the complainant has failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of the O.P by not extending electric line to his house and as such, he is not entitled to get any relief from the O.Ps, as prayed for by him. However, this Forum directs the O.P No.1 to extend alternative electric line to the house of the complainant through the nearby by lane of the PWD road, as admitted by the O.P No.1 and supported by the neighbours of the complainant, as per rules and regulations of the TSECL. The O.P No.1 is further directed not to raise any electric bill in the name of the complainant from 01-09-2018 till the date on which new connection is extended to the house of the complainant.
9. With this observation, the complaint filed by the complainant stands disposed of on contest.
10. Furnish copy of this judgment to the complainant and O.P No.1 free of cost through their respective learned counsels.
ANNOUNCED
(J. M. MURASING)
PRESIDENT
(S. DEB) (P. SINHA)
MEMBER MEMBER
