DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESAL FORUM
NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.
C. C. CASE NO. 235/2015
Date of Filing: Date of Admission Date of Disposal:
16.04.2015 23.04.2015 31.08.2015
Complainant/s = Vs. = O.Ps.
1.Sri Amarnath Bhagat, 1. West Bengal State Electricity
S/o. Rajpati Bhagat, Distribution Co. Ltd,
Bishnupur(Ghosh Para), Bidyut Bhavan, Salt Lake,
P.S. Rajarhat, Kolkata- 91.
Dist-North 24 Pgs. 2. Rajarhat Customer Care Centre
2.Smt. Anita Sarkar, Kalipark, P.O. R. Gopalpur,
W/o. Sri Prasanta Kumar Sarkar, P.S. Rajarhat, North 24 Pgs,
Bishnupur, (Ghosh Para), 3. Sri Sandeep Singha,
P.S. Rajarhat, S/o. Sri Sanat Kumar Singha,
Dist- North 24 Pgs. Bishnupur, (Ghosh Para),
P.S. Rajarhat, North 24 Pgs.
Advocate Name for the complainant:- Razzak Ali Middya.
Advocate Name for the OPs:- Sachchidanand Mitra and others.
J U D G E M E N T
Facts of the case, in short, is that after purchase the plots of land, both the complainants built up a residential house and applied for new electric connection at Rajarhat Customer Care Centre, the O.P. No.2. On receiving the applications from both the complainants, the O.P. No.2 served quotation. As per quotation, both the parties deposited their respective quotation amount at the aforesaid office. On receiving the quotation amount, the O.Ps fixed a pole on the common passage and kept another pole on the road for fixing. That getting information of fixing pole for installation of electricity, the O.P. no.3 without raising any objection at the locality, on 09.09.14 filed a Misc Petition No. 3754/14 before the Ld. Executive Magistrate against the husband and her son of the complainant No. 2 and obtain an order to maintain statuesque on Mouza Bishnupur, J.L. No. 44, Khatian No. 1376, Dag No. 590, land measuring about 1 decimal under Rajarhat Bishnupur, P.S. Rajarhat, Dist- North 24 Pgs. The said Misc Petition No. 3754/14 has been dropped by the Ld. Executive Magistrate at Barasat by an order dated 02.12.14.
The complainant stated that in the said Misc. Petition No.3754/14, the O.P.
Dictated and corrected Contd. …. 2/-
C. C. Case No.-235/2015
- :: 2 :: -
Nos. 1 and 2 are not at all party even then the O.P. No.3 are objecting and trying obstruct the work installation work going on after showing the order of the Ld. Executive Magistrate.
The complainants further stated that due to objection and creating obstruction by the O.P. No.3, the men of the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 are not willing to continue the work of installation of service connection of the complainants.
The complainants also stated that O.P. No.3 is unnecessarily harassing the complainant by restraining the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 as such the complainants are entitled to get compensation for their mental and physical harassment.
The complainants further stated that they are entitled to get service connection as they have paid all necessary fees/ claim of the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2. Non effecting service connection by the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 is deficiency of service.
The O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 have contested the case by way of filing written version.
The O.Ps stated that the present petition is not tenable in law as no case has been made out by the complainant under the C.P.Act as such liable to be rejected.
The O.Ps further stated that the present petition is not at all maintainable as there is no deficiency of service of the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 as such the present petition against the O.Ps are liable to be rejected.
The O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 also stated that they tried to install service connection but the O.P. No.3 and his men and agent are restraining with the help of local police.
The O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 further stated that the complainant No. 2 has applied for new service connection, quotation issued on 16.07.14. The said quotation amount has been deposited by the complainant No.2. On receiving the quotation amount, work order was issued on 05.08.14 for effecting new service connection by erecting PCC Poles.
The O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 also stated that on 30.08.14, Sandeep Singha and Smt. Apana Sinha raised objection that the land under Dag No. 590 is subject matter of case under Section 144 (2) Cr.P.C. The O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 was forced to stop the work.
Dictated and corrected Contd. …. 3/-
C. C. Case No.-235/2015
- :: 3 :: -
The O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 further stated that on 22.12.14 the complainant No.2, submitted a letter that the case No. 3754 /14 is dropped on 02.12.14 by the Ld. Executive Magistrate at Barasat as such the new service connection may be installed. The engaged Agency of the O.P tried to start the erection work at the place of the complainants, the said O.P further started objection and finally police personnel came and stopped the work. The O.P was willing to install the service connection of the complainants but it was not possible to do the work for regular objection of the O.P. No.3 and his men and agent.
The O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 also stated that without the legal protection, the O.P and his men and agent failed to do any work at the place and premises of the complainants.
The O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 stated that without direction by the Ld. Forum upon Rajarhat P.S, North h24 Pgs the O.Ps were not in a position to do their work for installation of new service connection. Hence they prayed for dismissal of the case.
Point for Decision:-
Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for?
Decision with Reasons
Complainant has submitted affidavit in chief in support of his contention in the complaint. Complainant submitted the documents in support of his claim. We have perused the documents.
Ld. Lawyer for the O.P. No.1 submitted before this Forum that they are willing to supply electric connection in the complainant’s premises but O.P. no.3 who raised objection in the work of O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 in such a manner, installation could not be done.
Ld. Lawyer for the complainant did not turn up at the time of hearing of argument. But we have perused the materials on record that there is no reflection in the written version of the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 as to what is the reason for which they failed to supply electric connection in the premises of the complainant. If the raising of objection is legal then the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 should supply electric connection in the premises of the complainant in a different manner. But when they have already accepted the fees for supplying electric connection in the premises of the complainant they must comply the same. Accordingly, we are of the view that the enjoyment of electricity is an emergency service and O.Ps should supply the electric connection to the complainant’s premises.
Dictated and corrected Contd. …. 4/-
C. C. Case No.-235/2015
- :: 4 :: -
Hence
Ordered,
that the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.Ps.
The O.Ps are directed to complete the installation work of consumer ID No. 102099485 in the name of Amarnath Bhagat and Consumer ID No. 10176840 in the name of Anita Sarkar within 15 days from the date of this order in a legal manner, failing which O.Ps shall have to pay sum of Rs 100/- per day from the date of this order till it realization, as punitive damages, which shall be deposited by the O.Ps in this State Consumer Welfare Fund.
Let copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost when applied for.
Member President
Dictated & Corrected by me.
