Order no. 12 dated 5.4.2016
Brief case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a resident of Village Purba Mallickpur, P.O. Elahipur, P.S. Haripal, District Hooghly, West Bengal . She is a widow and after death of her mother she has been residing at the aforementioned house to look after her 88 years old father Sk. Matihar Rahaman , who has been suffering from various old age ailments. In their house there is no electricity connection though all other houseowners in the vicinity of their house are enjoying the said electrical facilities . She filed an application in the office of the respondent no.2 the Assistant Engineer & Station Manager , Nalikul Consumer Care Unit , West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. , P.O. Nalikul, District Hooghly , Pin 712 407. The Assistant Engineer, vide his Memo no. 1001374381/APP-RECT/01 dated 24.4.2013 informed her that her application for
new connection had been received with some documents which were found to be in order and also gave her a number i.e. 10001374381 with instruction to quote that number in respect of all future communications. Thereafter, she deposited requisite earnest money of Rs.200/- vide receipt no. 16860, Security deposit of Rs.526 vide receipt no. 17491 and house service connection charges of Rs.200/- vide receipt no. 17492 in cash on 24.4.2013 in the office of the Respondent no.2 as was instructed to her by the OP. Even after deposit of those amount as mentioned above the OP did not take any action for providing new connection to her house and after lapse of more than seven months communicated to her vide Memo. No. NKL /CON /25/13-14 /05/1891 dated 20.11.2013 that there is problem of “Way Leave at your Premises” and as such they could not provide her the facility of new connection. The petitioner sent a legal notice through her Advocate Kaji Samiullah of Serampur Court wherein it was informed to the OP no.2 that there is no problem of “Way Leave” as the OP no.2 has already given service connection to her neighbours namely Najibur Rahaman, Ajijur Rahaman, Sk. Muzzafar and Sk. Rajikur Rahaman from the existing electric pole near the house of the petitioner. The OP no. 2 did not make any reply to that Advocate’s letter. Though there is no problem of any “Way Leave” , the oP no.2 for reasons
better known to him deprived the complainant from enjoying electricity . It also causing immense sufferings to her who has been looking after her infirmed and octogenarian father . Inspite of receiving all the required fees like earnest money etc. the respondents intentionally and motivatedly deprived the complainant . The complainant is victim of discrimination and partiality of the Opposite parties. Her allegation is that action of the oP amounts to gross deficiency in service and petitioner has suffered mental pain and agony due to such discriminatory and neglecting attitude of the Ops.
The complainant prays for directing the Ops to provide new electricity connection to her house and also prayed for passing order of compensation of Rs.1.0 lac for harassing her mentally and physically as well as litigation cost as the Forum deem fit and proper.
Op contested the case by filing written version stating inter alia that they have no intention to deprive the complainant but as there is no “way leave” they failed to provide connection to the complainant . So there is no question of laches or negligence arises on the part of the opposite parties.
Complainant to establish her case filed the following documents.
1) Letter dated 20.11.2013 addressed to the complainant Jasmin Begam issued by A.E. and S.M. Nalikul CCC, WBSEDCL
2) Three Money receipts for Rs.200/- , Rs.526/- and Rs.200/- respectively issued by S.M. WBSEDCL, Nalikul
3) Faraz Nama.
4) Copy of Porcha ( 2 pages) in respect of the Land of the complainant.
5) Application dated 24.4.2013 issued by the WBSEDCL, Nalikul addressed to the complainant along with a money receipt of Rs.200/-.
6) Copy of Memo no. 01374381/QUOT/03 (Quotation issued by WBSEDCL, Nalikul).
7) Copy of Advocate’s letter dated 4.12.2013 along with acknowledgement receipt.
The Opposite party however did not file any documents .
POINTS TO BE DECIDED :
Whether the petitioner is a consumer ?
Whether this forum has jurisdiction to try this complaint ?
Whether there is deficiency and /or negligency on the part of the OP?
Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
Points no. 1 and 2 are taken up together for brevity and convenience .
Materials on record show that the complainant deposited requisite fees for getting new electricity connection in her residence and the Opposite party by issuing receipt , received those fees and security deposits . The OP also did not raise any question in respect of the complainant as a consumer as defined under Section 2(d)(i) of the C.P.Act, 1986. Where the oP received consideration money for providing any service to the complainant who applied for such service not for commercial purpose , is definitely a consumer under the Act. As regards jurisdiction no question has been raised by the oP and on perusal of the materials before us we find that this Forum has jurisdiction both pecuniary and territorial to try the case. The first two points are thus disposed of.
Point no. 3 and 4:
We shall discuss these two points together as they are interlinked.
From the affidavit in chief filed by the complainant and from other materials on record it is clear that from a pole just by the side of the complainant’s house some electricity connections have been provided by the oPs to some other neighbours within the vicinity of the house of the complainant. If that be so , it is beyond comprehension as to why the complainant could not be
provided with such facility in her house where she resides with her octogenarian father who is suffering from old age ailments. The Opposite party raised a question of “Way Leave” but failed to prove with sufficient evidence of their claim. The Opposite party also did not deny the claim of the complainant that from the same pole electricity connection has been provided to some other houses in the vicinity of the house of the complainant. When the complainant deposited the requisite fees and securities for obtaining electricity in her house and when the OP failed to show any reason for refusing of the same , we are of the opinion that there is negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite parties. We have already discussed about the point raised by the oP regarding “Way Leave”. It is unnecessary to reiterate the same as the Ops has failed to establish that claim.
In the light of the discussion above we are of the opinion that the complainant has succeeded to establish her claim. We are also of the opinion that there is negligence /deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. As such the prayer of the complainant should be allowed but in part.
Accordingly ordered
That the C.C. no. 62 of 2014 be and the same is allowed in part.
The Opposite parties are directed to provide electricity connection to the residence of the complainant within one from the date of this order. As the complainant suffered mentally and financially she is awarded a compensation of Rs.3,000/- and also awarded a litigation cost of Rs.1000/-. The Opposite parties who are jointly as well as severally liable is directed to comply with the order mentioned above within 30 days from the date of this order i.d. complainant is at liberty to file execution case as per C.P.Act, 1986. If the Ops failed to comply with the order within the time specified above the complainant shall be entitled to interest @ 5% in respect of the monetary award mentioned above.
Let a copy of this order be made over to the parties free of cost.
