In the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Burdwan.
(Nivedita Pally, G.T. Road, P.O.-Sripally, Dist.-Burdwan)
Consumer Complaint No. - 179/2015.
Date of filing - 17.08.2015.
Date of final order - 13.07.2016.
Present
i) Sri Asoke Kumar Mandal Honorable President.
ii) Sri Pankaj Kumar Sinha Honorable Member.
Sri Ashok Lal Jhala, S/o. Late Tribhuban Praygji Jhala,
Resident of J.B.Mitra Road, Singh Daraja,
P.O.-Rajbati, P.S. & Dist.-Burdwan, Pin-713147. Complainant
-VERSUS-
- Sr. Station Manager, Burdwan Sector-1, WBSEDCL,
Power House Para, Frazer Avenue, P.O., P.S. &
District-Burdwan, Pin-713101.
- Smt. Kalabati Jhala, W/o.Late Tribhuban Praygji Jhala.
- Sri Goutam Lal Jhala.
- Sri Mahesh Lal Jhala.
- Sri Manoj Jhala, 3,4&5 are the sons of Late Tribhuban Praygji Jhala.
- Smt. Joyshtee Jhala, D/o. Tribhuban Praygji Jhala,
2 to 6 are the residents of J.B.Mitra Road, Singh Daraja,
P.O.-Rajbati, P.S. & Dist.-Burdwan, Pin-713147. Opposite Parties
Appeared for the Complainant : Ld. Advocate Deb Krishna Sinha.
Appeared for the Opposite Party No.1 : Ld. Advocate Biswanath Nag.
Appeared for the Opposite Party No.2 to 6 : Ld. Advocate Suvro Chakraborty.
JUDGEMENT
This is a case U/s 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 for an award directing the O.P. No.1 to provide/to install the electric connection in the premises of the complainant, situated in a portion of plot No.8988 under khatian No.16566 as mentioned in the complainant, to pay Rs.75,000/- as compensation for physical & mental pain and damages, to pay Rs.5000/- as litigation cost and to pay Rs.1000/- per day as penalty.
-2-
The complainant’s case in short is that the complainant has been living in a premises situated in a portion of plot No.8988 under khatian No.16566 separately and in separate mess being the legal heir of his deceased father Tribhuban Praygji Jhala but in said premises there is/was no electric connection. Facing inconvenience, the complainant made an application before the O.P. No.1 for a new electric connection observing all the formalities. The O.P. No.1 after receiving required documents made enquiry & verification and also issued quotation on 26.9.2014 asking the complainant to deposit quotation money of Rs.1,730/-. The complainant deposited the quotation money on 27.9.2014. After such deposit the O.P. No.1 by Memo No.946954 dated 14.10.2014, issued work order to the enlisted Contractor Nandi & Sons (Mukul Nandi) to effect the service connection having No.500763719 on the basis of the application No.5000723645, in the name of the complainant. But no fruitful result was made. In spite of several requests, the O.P. No.1 did not take any step to effect the service connection in the premises of the complainant. The complainant on several occasions visited the office of the O.P. No.1 and requested him to give electric connection in his premises disclosing his inconvenience but the O.P. No.1 did not pay any heed to that requests. The O.P. No.1 without visiting the premises of the complainant for taking effective steps to install the service connection, issued a letter dated 5.11.2014 to the complainant informing their inability to provide the electric connection in the premises of the complainant. The complainant sent a legal notice to the O.P. No.1 on 2.6.2015 but O.P. No.1. refused to receive the same. For the deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. No.1 the complainant has been suffering very much and for that the complainant is entitled to get compensation. For the illegal act of the O.P. No.1 the complainant has been forced to come before this Forum and as such he is entitled to get litigation cost and cost as penalty. Hence, this case with the prayer as mentioned above.
The O.P. No.1 contested this case by filing written version while denying the case of the complainant and stating inter-alia that the complainant has no cause of action, the case is not maintainable and the case is bad for defect of parties as the persons who raised objection at the time of giving electric connection, have not been made parties in this case. It has been admitted by this O.P. in his W.V. that the complainant applied to get new service connection in his premises as mentioned in the complaint, in prescribed form of WBSEDCL (PROCEDURE-A 2010), this O.P. issued a quotation vide No.5000723645/QUOT/03 dated 26.9.2014 asking the complainant to deposit the quotation money, the complainant deposited the quotation money on 27.9.2014 and on receipt of said amount, necessary work order vide No.946954 dated 14.10.2014, was issued to M/s. Nandi & Sons, the enlisted contractor to provide electric connection in the premises of the complainant. It has been stated by this O.P. that due to objection raised by Sri Monoj Jhala and others, said M/s. Nandi & Sons failed to give effect to the work order of the O.P. No.1, the matter was intimated to the complainant by issuing letter dated 5.11.2014 with a request to submit proper way leave permission but the complainant did not submit the same, accordingly the work order was not effected, there is/was no latches or negligence on the part of the O.P. No.1, in view of the provision of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Rules and Regulations framed there under, if there is any grievance against non-effecting the connection that should be ventilated before the Regulatory Commission or before the
-3-
person or authority empowered by the said Act and as such this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try this case. It is therefore, claimed by this O.P. that the case is liable to be dismissed.
During pendency of this case as the O.P. No.1 claimed that the case is bad for defect of the parties, the complainant by way of amendment brought the O.Ps. No.2 to 6 as O.Ps. in this case. Being noticed the O.P. Nos. 2 to 6 appeared in this case and contested this case by filing written version while stating inter-alia that the complainant is not their consumer and these O.Ps. have no liability to meet the claim of the complainant. It has been further stated by this O.Ps. that the complainant has been living in a separate premises and this O.Ps. never raised any objection in installing the electric meter and supplying the electricity by the O.P. No.1 in the premises of the complainant. It is, therefore, claimed by these O.Ps. that this case is liable to be dismissed against these O.Ps.
DECISION WITH REASON
In support of his case the complainant has relied upon the evidence on affidavit and photocopies of several documents which are quotation issued by the O.P. No.1, money receipt showing payment of quotation money, work order, rent receipt, residential certificate etc. On the other hand from the side of the O.Ps. no evidence has been adduced supporting their respective cases. We carefully perused the contents of the pleadings. It appears that the complainant’s case that he applied for getting a new electric service connection in his premises in prescribed form of WBSEDCL (PROCEDURE-A 2010), the quotation was issued by the O.P. No.1, the complainant deposited the quotation money of Rs.1,730/- and on receipt of said quotation money the O.P. No.1 issued work order to M/s. Nandi & Sons, the enlisted contractor to provide electric connection in the premises of the complainant, are not denied by the contesting parties. The documents on which the complainant has relied upon, are supporting this case of the complainant.
In view of the above discussions it is clear that the complainant is the consumer of the O.P. No.1 as he has already deposited the quotation money of Rs.1,730/-. In the written version the O.P. No.1 has only stated that he has failed to provide electric connection in the premises of the complainant as one Monoj Jhala and others raised objection and as the complainant has failed to supply way leave permission as per format –A. As the quotation was issued by the O.P. No.1, it could be said that the complainant submitted way leave permission as required. The O.P. No.1 has only stated that as one Monoj Jhala and others raised objection, he failed to provide the electric connection in the premises of the complainant. Said Monoj Jhala & others have been made parties in this case as O.Ps. No.2 to 6. The O.Ps. No.2 to 6 have stated in their written version that they raised no objection in the matter of installation of electric meter and supply of electricity by the O.P. No.1 in the premises of the complainant. From the statement of the O.P. No.2 to 6 it is clear that the O.P. No.1’s statement that Monoj Jhala and others raised objection in the matter of installation of electric meter and supply of electricity, does not stand and from it, it is clear that there was negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. No.1.
-4-
It is needless to say that the complainant is not the consumer of the O.P. No.2 to 6 and as such the complainant is not entitled to get any relief against the O.P. No.2 to 6.
It has already been decided that there was negligence on the part of the O.P. No.1 in the matter of supplying the electricity related to the quotation as mentioned above. So, the O.P. No.1 is liable to pay compensation and litigation cost. During the course of hearing/argument the complainant himself and his Ld. Advocate submitted before this Forum to pass an order directing the O.P. No.1 to provide and install the electric connection as mentioned in quotation vide Memo No.5000723645/QUOT/03 dated 26.9.2014 and order No.946954 dated 14.10.2014 (LOI No.BDN CCC-1/LOI/N & S/843 dated 15.10.2014) issued to the enlisted contractor M/s. Nandi & Sons, in his premises within a short period only. The complainant is not willing to get any order for compensation, litigation cost and penalty from the O.P. No.1.
In the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that an award should be passed against the O.P. No.1 directing him to provide electric connection in the premises of the complainant as mentioned in the complaint petition and quotation of the O.P. No.1 by installing necessary electric meter. As the complainant has prayed before this Forum during the course of argument, not to pass any order for compensation, litigation cost and penalty against the O.P. No.1, this Forum is not willing to pass any order directing the O.P. No.1 to pay compensation, litigation cost and penalty to the complainant, to avoid delay in providing the electric connection in the premises of the complainant.
Accordingly, the case succeeds in part.
Fees paid is correct. Hence, it is
Ordered
that the complaint case being No.179/2015 is allowed in part against the O.P. No. 1 but the case is dismissed against the rest without any cost, accordingly, the complainant do get an award directing the O.P. No.1 to provide electric connection as per quotation vide Memo No.5000723645/QUOT/03 dated 26.9.2014 and order No.946954 dated 14.10.2014, in the premises of the complainant situated in a portion of plot No.8988 under khatian No.16566 as mentioned in the complainant, taking all necessary legal steps on requirement, within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which the complainant will be at liberty to put this order in execution in accordance with law.
(Asoke Kr. Mandal)
Dictated and corrected by me. President
D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan
(Asoke Kr. Mandal) (Sri Pankaj Kr. Sinha)
President Member
D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan
