DATE OF FILING : 28.04.2014.
DATE OF S/R : 03.06.2014.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 27.07.2015.
Sk. Abdullah,
son of late Sk. Ibrahim
of village Rajderia, P.O. & P.S. Jagatballavpur,
District Howrah. ………... …..…………………………...……….…... COMPLAINANT.
Versus-
1. West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited,
a Government of West Bengal Enterprise Bargachia,
Howrah 711404.
2. The Station Manager,
WBSEDCL, Bargachia,
District Howrah,
Howrah 711404.
3. Sk. Morselim,
son of late Sk. Panchu
of village Rajderia, P.O. & P.S. Jagatballavpur,
District Howrah…… ……………...………………………………. Opposite Parties.
P R E S E N T
Hon’ble President : Shri B. D. Nanda, M.A. ( double ), L.L.M., WBHJS.
Hon’ble Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
Hon’ble Member : Shri A.K. Pathak.
F I N A L O R D E R
The instant case was filed by complainant,Sk. Abdullah, U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 wherein the complainant has prayed for direction upon the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 for restoration of electric connection from the existing meter and to shift the electric meter from the existing place to the suitable place occupied by the complainant and to pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation and litigation costs along with other order and orders as the Forum may deem fit and proper.
- The brief facts of the case is that the complainant is a consumer of o.p. nos. 1 & 2 having the consumer no. 33677 and consumer service no. BG/D/17164, meter no. HH968647 installed at the dag no. 2365, khatian no. 637, J.L. no. 7, mouza Bankul, P.S. J.B. Pur, Howrah. For the aforesaid plot the wife of the complainant is a co-owner. In order to shift the electric meter, the complainant once applied before the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 along with the deposit of the requisite fees vide Annexures. But at the first instance the shifting was not done by the o.p. nos. 1 & 2. Thereafter complainant again paid the requisite fees and applied for the shifting of the meter before o.p. nos. 1 & 2. But even in spite of payment, the shifting was not done in favour of the complainant. Hence the case.
- Notices were served upon the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 and the legal heirs of the o.p. no. 3, being o.p. nos. 3(a) to 3(i). theo.p. nos. 1 and2 & 3(a) written version separately. Although 3(b) to 3(i) appeared but not filed written version.So the case was heard on contest against o.p. nos. 1, 2 & 3(a) and ex parte against the rest.
4. Upon pleadings of parties two points arose for determination :
i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
- Both the points aretaken up together for consideration. We have carefully gone through the written versions of the o.p. nos. 1, 2 & 3(a) and noted their contents. It is admitted by the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 vide paragraph 12 of their written version that complainant applied for the shifting of the meter having the service connection no. BG/D/17164 and the consumer no. 33677 and meter HH968647 for more than once for which required inspections were also carried out by o.p. nos. 1 & 2. And quotation was also generated and supplied to the complainant lastly on 19.7.2014 and petitioner deposited the quotation amount on 21.7.2014. But when the Station Manager of o.p. no. 2 along with his technical staff went to the above mentioned premises for the execution of the shifting of the work, the o.p. nos. 3, Sk. Morselim, since deceased, with his family members raised huge objection for which o.p. nos. 1 & 2 had to quit the place leaving the job half done. It is also a fact that complainant lodged diary with the local police station. Even o.p. nos. 1 & 2 also requested the appropriate authority for the police assistance on different dates since 31.7.2014 to 04.9.2014. But it is alleged by the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 that even when they went to execute the job with the local police help on 11.9.2014, o.p. nos. 3(a) to 3(i) raised vehement objection which led the work to remain incomplete as a result the complainant is living without electricity.
- We have considered the documents on record from which it is very much evident that the complainant had been a bonafide consumer of o.p. nos. 1 & 2 even before the filing of the T.S. No. 149 of 2011 pending before the Ld. 3rd Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Howrah. So even there is an order of maintaining status quo, it would not affect the same if the shifting work is carried out by o.p. nos. 1 & 2. Accordingly complainant is very much entitled to the relief as prayed for.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 253 of 2014 ( HDF 253 of 2014 ) be and the same is allowed on contest without costs as against the O.P. nos. 1 & 2 and dismissed as against the o.p. nos. 3(a) to 3(i).
The O.P. nos. 1 & 2 be directed to shift the existing meter no. HH968647 having the consumer no. 33677 and consumer service connection no. BG/D/17164 at the occupied portion of the complainant at the schedule within 30 days from the date of this order with the help local P.S. J.B. Pur.
No order as to compensation as well as litigation costs.
O.C., J.B. Pur P.S. is hereby directed to accord necessary assistance to the complainant as well as o.p. nos. 1 & 2 at the time of execution of the shifting work.
The o.p. nos. 3(a) to 3(i) are hereby strictly directed not to put any objection in this regard i.d., severe legal consequences shall follow against them.
The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after the expiry of the appeal period.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( Jhumki Saha)
Member, C.D.R.F., Howrah.
