DATE OF FILING                    : 06-06-2012.

DATE OF S/R                            : 06-07-2012.

DATE OF FINAL ORDER      :  07-01-2013.

Basudeb Kundu,

son of late Gopal Kundu, Puilya, Subhaspally, Bagnipara,  P.S.- Jagacha,  P.O.- Unsani,

Howrah, – 7111 302

. ----------------------------------------------------------------  COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

1.         WBSEDCL , The Station Manager,

2.         The District  Engineer,

             WBSEDCL, N.S. Road,

             Howrah – 711 101.

3.         The Chairman,

            WBSEDCL, Bidyut Bhawan, Salt Lake City,

            Kolkata.

4.         Smt. Monika Hambir,

            w/o. Uttam Hambir,

            of Puilya, Subhaspally, Baganipara,

            P.S. Jagacha, P.O. Unsani,

            District – Howrah,

            PIN – 711 302. -----------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.

                                                P    R    E     S    E    N     T

President     :     Shri T.K. Bhattacharya,    M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.

Member      :      Shri P.K. Chatterjee.

Member       :     Smt. Jhumki Saha.

                                                 F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

1.                  The instant case was filed by complainant   U/S 12 of the  C.P.  Act, 1986,

as amended against the O.Ps.  alleging deficiency in service U/S 2( 1 )( g ),  2( 1 )( o ) of the C.P. Act, 1986 wherein the complainant, Basudeb Kundu has prayed for direction upon the O.P. nos. 1, 2 & 3  to install electric connection to the premises of the complainant and to restrain the o.p. no. 4 from resisting the execution of the electric connection.

2.                  As per prayer of the complainant the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 held inspection on 27-

11-2011 and directed the petitioner for depositing the security deposit. When all the formalities were complete and the o.ps. came to install new electric connection in the premises at Puilya, Subhaspally, Bagnipara, P.S. Jagacha, the o.p. no. 4 raised objection and created obstruction resulting non installation of the electric connection.

3.                  The o.p. nos. 1 & 2 in the written version stated that they have no

objection in giving the new supply of  electricity to the complainant. On 06-02-2011 their men visited the premises to effect electric connection at the same premises but due to objection from the side of o.p. no. 4 Smt. Monika Hambir, the electric connection could not be effected.

4.                  The o.p. no. 4, Smt. Monika Hambir in her written version, as amended

stated that she also applied for new electric connection and deposited the estimated money. But due to strong objection and obstruction from the complainant, Basudeb Kundu, the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 could not effect new electric line ; that the o.p. no. 4 is the owner of the contiguous plot of land where she resides ; that the complainant stands in the way of her new connection and threatens her with dire consequence. Alternatively, she has also prayed for new electric connection as the estimate has already been assessed by the o.p. nos. 1 & 2. She is ready to file any bank draft if directed by the Forum. 

     5.    Upon pleadings of  parties we think, two points require  for determination :

i)          Whether the complainant is  entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?

ii)                  Whether the o.p. no. 4  is  entitled to a new electric connection as prayed in  her written version  ? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

      6.   The prayer of the complainant does not suffer from any ambiguity. He is the owner of separate plot where he resides which is contiguous to the plot of o.p. no. 4. The o.p. nos. 1 & 2 has no objection to effect new connection if there is no disturbance or obstruction on the part of the o.p. no. 4. Therefore, we are of the view that the prayer of the complainant shall be allowed and he is entitled to new electric connection. The point no. 1 is accordingly disposed of. 

      7.   With respect to the alternative prayer of the o.p. no. 4, we are of the view that the instant prayer is a class by itself. Question may arise how the o.p. no. 4 in not filing a separate complaint can get new electric connection by way of counter claim in her written version. The answer to the question is very simple. The intention of the beneficial legislation that is the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended can never be to extract money from the consumers while granting relief. The bank draft is collected for the purpose of service of notice and other ancillary costs. We have watched the o.p. no. 4 a wretched poor woman attended the Forum on regular dates with her children praying for relief. Inasmuch as it is the positive allegation of the complainant that the new connection could not be effected for the alleged resistance of the o.p.  no. 4, and conversely when the o.p. no. 4 claims that her new connection of electricity could not be installed for the persistent obstruction on the part of the complainant, we feel it expedient to pass direction upon the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 to install new connection in both the premises i.e. in the premises of the complainant and o.p. no. 4. We are further of the view that such order is for the benefit of the complainant and the o.p. no. 4 together. Likewise, it will save the installation cost of the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 if the connection to the o.p. no. 4 is installed through angle.

      In the result, the prayer of the o.p. no. 4 is also allowed for ends of justice and to afford relief to a poor woman who submitted in open Forum that she is a BPL card holder and the card has been lost. Even if we do not accept her submission that she is  the  BPL card holder her appearance never reveals that she even belongs  to a lower middle class family. We shall be happy if her long cherished dream for a new connection is fulfilled, showing respect to the beneficial legislation.  That apart the purpose of the benevolent Government can never be to deprive the members of the lowest strata of the society. Accordingly, the point no. 2 is disposed of.  

      Hence,

                                    O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No. 52 of 2012 ( HDF 52 of 2012 )  be  allowed on contest as against the o.ps. but without   costs.  Similarly, the prayer of the o.p. no. 4 Smt. Monika Hambir be allowed.

      The o.p. no. 4 be directed to deposit a bank draft from a Nationalized Bank  for Rs. 100/- in favour of the President, DCDRF, Howrah, payable at Kolkata, within 10 days from the date of this order.

      The o.p. nos. 1 & 2 be directed to install new electric connection to the premises of the complainant together with the premises of the o.p. no. 4 Smt. Monika Hambir in the same transaction. It is up to the choice of the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 if the electric connection can be installed by placing an angle from the same line or by placing pillars in the passage of the o.p. no. 4 after observing necessary formalities.

      The O.P. nos. 1 & 2 are directed to install electricity within 15 days from the date of this order.  

      The WBSEDCL Authority shall be at liberty to take necessary assistance or protection from Jagacha P.S. The I/C, Jagacha P.S. shall be under obligation to provide necessary assistance or protection to the men and officers of the WBSEDCL Authority for providing such supply to the complainant and the o.p. no. 4 in case of approach made by the WBSEDCL Authority.       

      Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.