Consumer Complaint No. 180 of 2016
Date of filing: 05-10-2016 Date of disposal: 08-03-2017
Present :
Sri Asoke Kr. Mandal Hon’ble President,
Smt. Silpi Majumer Hon’ble Member,
Jahanara Begum, W/o. Sk. Kuddus, resident of
Vill. Khagragarh, P.O. , P.S. & Dist.-Burdwan
Pin-713104.
Complainant
VERSUS
- West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Corporation Ltd.,
Customer Care Centre, Sector-1, Power House Complex,
Burdwan, Pin-713101, represented by it’s Station Manager/
Assistant Engineer.
- West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Corporation Ltd.,
Represented by its Divisional Engineer, having its Divisional
Office at Burdwan Urban Division, Frazer Avenue, Power House,
Burdwan, Pin-713101.
- Sk. Sukur, S/o. Abdul Hamid, resident of Vill.- Khagragarh,
Miszidtala, P.O., P.S. & Dist.-Burdwan, Pin-713104.
Opposite Parties.
Appeared for the complainant : Ld. Advocate Debdas Rudra.
Appeared for the O. P. Nos. 1 & 2 : Ld. Advocate Biswanath Nag.
Appeared for the O. P. No.3 : Ld. Advocate Biddya Das.
JUDGEMENT
This is a case U/s. 12 of the C.P. Act for an award directing the O.Ps. to provide new electric connection in the premises of the complainant after observing the necessary formalities, to pay Rs.75,000/- as compensation for mental pain and agony and to pay Rs.20,000/- litigation cost to the complainant.
The complainant’s case in short is that Sk. Kuddus the husband of the complainant and Sk. Sukur (O.P. No.3) are the two brothers and they were living in their families in the property as mentioned in the schedule of the complaint. Subsequently they started to live separately in the landed property as mentioned in the schedule of the complaint. The husband of the complainant due to matrimonial dispute left the premises living the complainant and her daughter. As such the complainant and her daughter started to live in a mud hut standing in the plot of land as mentioned in the schedule of the complaint without any electricity. The complainant facing much inconvenience applied before the O.P. No.1 to get a new electric connection in her premises (mud hut). On receipt of said application the O.P. No.1 issued quotation dated 26.8.2014 in favour of the complainant. The complainant paid such quotation amount of Rs.972/- in the office of the O.P. No.1 against two money receipts dated 15.10.2014. After the receipt of such quotation money the O.P. No.1 installed an electric meter in the premises of the complainant but due to objection raised by the O.P. No.3 the O.P. No.1 did not execute the service connection. Thereafter, the O.P. No.1 by issuing a letter dated 31.10.2014 intimated the complainant that the service connection could not be provided as court case and legal obligation are lying over the premises and as the O.P. No.3 has raised objection in the matter of providing electric connection in the premises of the complainant. On receipt of said letter the complainant requested the O.P. No.1 to provide electric connection considering the inconvenience of the complainant and her daughter. But the O.P. No.1 did not pay any heed. No legal proceeding in respect of the landed property as mentioned in the schedule of the complaint. Only one proceeding U/s.125 of CRPC for maintenance is pending against the husband of the complainant and for such proceeding the O.Ps. could not be restrained to provide the electric connection in the premises of the complainant. For the deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the O.Ps. the complainant has been suffering. The O.P. No.3 has no locus-standy to raise any objection in the matter of providing electric connection in the premises of the complainant. So, the O.Ps. are liable to pay compensation and litigation cost to the complainant. Hence, this case with the prayer as mentioned above.
Inspite of service of notice the O.P. No.3 did not appear in this case and did not contest this case. So, the case was heard ex-parte against the O.P. No.3
The O.P. No.1 & 2 contested this case by filing joint written objection while stating inter-alia that the complainant has no cause of action, the case is not maintainable as per provision of Electricity Act, 2003 and it has been further stated by these O.Ps. No.1 & 2 that the Jahanara Begam applied to get electric connection in her premises at Khagragarh, Burdwan in prescribed form of WBSEDCL, thereafter these O.Ps. issued a quotation, the complainant deposited the quotation money in the office of the O.P. No.1 on 15.10.2014, on receipt of said quotation money the work order was issued to the enlisted contractor of the O.Ps. vide order No.949575 dated 18.10.2016, on 23.10.2016 the staff of the contractor went to the premises of the complainant to effect the service connection and thereafter installation of electric meter they started to draw the service cable but the O.P. No.3 raised physical objection and for the resistance of the O.P. No.3 the contractor failed to effect the proposed connection and returned with dismantling the meter and subsequent on 27.10.2014 the O.P. No.3 submitted a written complaint against the proposed connection of the complainant. It has also been stated by these O.Ps. that by issuing a letter these O.ps. asked the complainant to produce the necessary leave way/permission intimating the fact as mentioned on 9.11.2014 and the installed meter was removed on 17.11.2014, again the staff of the contractor took attempt to effect the service connection in the premises of the complainant but they failed to do so due to resistance made by the O.P. No.3, thereafter the O.Ps. vide their Memo No.BWN-CCC-1/900 dated 18.11.2014 intimated the above incident to the complainant, on 19.9.2016 the complainant again requested the O.Ps. to effect connection, on 21.9.2016 another agency attempt to effect such connection but they failed to do so, that in view of the provision of Section-42(5) of Electricity Act and Clause-3.5.1 of Notification No.55 of WBERC dated 7.8.2013, if there is any grievance against supply/distribution of electricity that should be ventilated before the Regulatory Commission or before the person or committee empowered. So, there is an appropriate forum to get relief, more over that the Hon’ble Apex Court in a case reported in (1) (2007) 8 SCC 381 has been pleased to hold that appropriate forum has been created under Electricity Act to resolve the dispute regarding supply of electricity connection and as such this case is not maintainable in this Forum. It is, therefore, claimed by these O.ps. that the case is liable to be dismissed with cost.
DECISION WITH REASON
In support of her case the complainant has relied upon her evidence on affidavit submitted on 19.1.2017, photocopies of quotation for Rs.972/- issued to the complainant, two money receipts being serial No.E1611414 and E1611415, letter dated 31.10.2014 issued by the Station Manager, Burdwan-1CCC and voter’s identity card of the complainant.
From the side of the contesting O.Ps. no evidence has been adduced but they have relied upon a portion of Notification No.46/WBERC dated 31.5.2010 of WBERC published in the Extra Ordinary issued in the Calcutta Gazette dated 31.5.2010, the part of said notification shows that way leave permission in the specified format in Form No.1 is required in the matter of new connection.
From the pleadings it is admitted that the complainant being the wife of Sk. Kuddus who is the brother of O.P. No.3 has been living with her daughter in the mud hut situated in RS Plot No.640, LR Plot No.1151 & 1152 as mentioned in the schedule of the complaint and in said mud hut there is no electric connection. The further case of the complainant is that the complainant facing inconvenience made an application to get electric connection in her said mud hut before the O.P. No.1 and on receipt of said application the O.P. No.1 issued quotation and the complainant deposited such quotation amount on 15.10.2014, is not denied by the contesting O.ps. Moreover, the contesting O.Ps. admitting such case of the complainant has stated that they issued work order to the enlisted contractor to effect the electric connection to the premises of the complainant. The photocopy of letter dated 31.10.2014 shows that the O.P. No.1 intimated the complainant that the service connection in her premises could not be provided as the court case and legal obligation are lying over the premises and also at the time of execution of service connection and after installation of meter objection was raised to show that there is legal obligation and court cases are pending in respect of the premises, from the side of the O.Ps. no evidence has been adduced. The case of the complainant is that her husband and the O.P. No.3 are the co-owners of the land in which the complainant’s mud hut is standing. As per provision of law the co-owners has no right to raise any objection in the matter of effecting service connection in the mud hut in which the complainant with her daughter has been living. Now a days the electric service connection is essential to run the human life comfortably. The reasons shown by the O.Ps. are not sufficient to effect the electric connection in the premises of the complainant. The O.P. No.1 & 2 had enough scope to give electric connection in the premises of the complainant taking help of the police force at the cost of the complainant. But the O.P. No.1 & 2 did not do so. Moreover, they by issuing letter dated 31.10.2014 intimated the complainant that the connection could not be given due to legal obligation and pendency of court cases and also the objection raised by the O.P. No.3. It is nothing but a denial to give electric connection in the premises of the complainant. This act of the O.P. No.1 & 2 is no doubt deficiency in service and for such act the complainant has been suffering very much and also the complainant has been harassed. It is essential to mention that the event that the husband of the complainant has not been living with the complainant due to some matrimonial dispute and the pendency of proceeding U/s.125 of CRPC cannot restrained the O.P. No.1 & 2 to give electric connection in the premises of the complainant.
In view of our above discussions we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to get electric connection in her premises and also the complainant is entitled to get compensation from the O.P. No.1 & 2 for her harassment, pain and mental agony. For the illegal act of the O.P. No.1 & 2 the complainant has been forced to come before this Forum, so the complainant is also entitled to get litigation cost. Considering the facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the Rs.2000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as litigation cost shall meets the ends of justice.
In view of our above discussions the case is succeeds. Fees paid is correct. Hence, it is
Ordered
that the complaint case is allowed on contest against the O.P. No.1 & 2 and the complaint is dismissed without any cost against the O.P. No.3, that the complainant do get an award directing the O.P. No.1 & 2 to give electric connection in the mud hut of the complainant as mentioned in the schedule of the complaint after taking police help at the cost of the complainant on requirement, to pay Rs.2000/- as compensation for mental pain, agony and harassment and to pay Rs.1000/- as litigation cost to the complainant within 45 days from this day, failing compliance of any part of this order by the O.P. No.1 & 2 within the time as specified, the complainant will be at liberty to put this award in execution in accordance with law.
Let the copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.
Dictated and corrected by me, (Asoke Kr. Mandal)
President
D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan
(Asoke Kr. Mandal)
President (Silpi Majumder)
D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan Member
D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan
