Delay of 24 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

            Complainant/appellant was having an electricity connection from the opposite parties which got severed on 17.05.1994 in a severe storm.  Appellant submitted an application to the opposite party No.7 for restoration of the electricity supply, but to no avail.  Complainant filed a Writ Petition before the High Court in which the concerned authorities were directed to restore the supply by fixing a pole within thirty days.  As the order was not complied with, complainant filed the Contempt Petition in which the High Court directed the concerned authorities to go to the spot to restore the supply by fixing a pole and to take help of police if the neighbor prevents them to do the same.  Since no action was taken by the authorities, complainant submitted an application to opposite party no.7 to which the opposite party replied annexing a sketch showing the proposed site of fixing the pole which falls within the land of two

-4-

neighbours and asked the complainant to obtain a ‘way leave’ from the said neighbours and from the Pradhan of Gram Panchayat.  Complainant against replied by modifying the sketch and showing the proposes site of fixing the pole the public road for which no ‘way leave’ was required and requested the opposite party to restore the supply immediately.  However, nothing was done.  Thereafter, complainant filed another Writ Petition in which the High Court ordered the authorities to restore the supply within two weeks with the help of police, if necessary.  The opposite party visited the site and thereafter, wrote to the complainant that order could not be complied due to obstruction raised by next door neighbours and requested the complainant to obtain No Objection Certificate from the neighbours within seven days.  Complainant filed Contempt before the High Court and, thereafter, the opposite party restored the supply of the complainant in April, 2009.  Aggrieved by the deprivation of electricity for 14 years, complainant filed the complaint before the State Commission seeking compensation of Rupees One Crore.

            State Commission has dismissed the appeal by observing thus:

           “There have been successive writ applications by the Complainant before the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court and also contempt applications by him. It has been contended by the Ld. Advocate for the OPs that in no such contempt

-5-

application the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court found fault and negligence on the part of the OPs. Documents also clearly show that the OPs could not function due to resistance by the neighbours of the Complainant. There has been no proof any laxity, delay and dereliction of duty on the part of the officials of the OP. The fault lied not with the OPs in any circumstances. There is no stated case of enmity of the OPs towards the Complainant. If any animosity existed, it was between the Complainant and his neighbours and the whole matter centered there. The Complainant has not sought any compensatory amount before the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court, on whose order the reconnection was given effect. Further, he made a complaint case before the Ld. District Forum, Nadia being case No.90/2002 in which he made out these OP Nos. 7 and 4 as parties as OP Nos. 1 and 2, respectively, which was dismissed. There itself he came after eight years from the time when the matter was disposed of by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court. It was made out therein that the Complainant has not also filed any paper/ document showing that he has got a declaration from any civil court that he has a right of way through the path shown by him in the sketch map, through which he wants to get the electric connection. Further, no document has been produced to show that the said land is a Panchayet land over which general public have a right of way. And, this being the position, the Ld. District Forum, Nadia held that it is not in a position to help him getting the restoration of electric connection in his premises through the disputed pathway. Against such dismissal order, the Complainant did not prefer

-6-

any appeal and the same got finality by virtue of Section 24 of the Consumer Protection Act. But this case has been filed before this Commission impleading as many as seven OPs claiming a compensation of Rs.1 crore. This alarming figure has got no basis at all on the face of the petition of complaint and the evidence thereof. Further, the case does not at all befit with the defining clauses of Section 2 (1) (c ) and (e) and/or (g) and/or (r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and no compensation lies in favour of the Complainant. Any such case for compensation only may only lie before the civil court. In all such facts and circumstances of the case, there is no case of the Complainant to get any compensation from the OPs in this complaint case. Accordingly, the complaint case is liable to be dismissed.

            We agree with the view taken by the State Commission that the respondents were not, in any way, deficient in restoring the electricity.  Appellant had approached the High Court in Writ Petition.  In spite of efforts made by the respondents, the electricity could not be restored.  Appellant filed a Contempt Petition which was also disposed of.  Thereafter, appellant filed another Writ Petition in which High Court directed the opposite parties to restore the electricity within two weeks with the help of police, if necessary.  Respondents visited the site and thereafter, wrote to the appellant that the order could not complied with due to objection raised by the next door neighbour.  Respondents requested the appellant to obtain No Objection Certificate. 

-7-

            Appellant, thereafter, filed another Contempt Petition before the High Court.  The electricity was, thereafter, restored in the year 2009. Appellant has filed this appeal seeking compensation of Rs.One Crore for depriving him of electricity for 14 years.

            It is evident from the order passed by the State Commission that the respondents had taken all possible steps to get the electricity restored but due to obstruction put by the respondents, the electricity could not be restored in spite of the direction issued by the High Court in the Writ Petition. 

            We agree with the view taken by the State Commission that there was no deficiency on the part of the respondent in restoring the electricity.  Dismissed.