State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Wbsedcl & Others vs Nibaran Chandra Manna on 30 June, 2009
D R A F T State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission West Bengal BHABANI BHAVAN (GROUND FLOOR) 31, BELVEDERE ROAD, ALIPORE KOLKATA 700 027 S.C. CASE NO. : FA/09/137 DATE OF FILING : 03.04.2009 DATE OF FINAL ORDER: 30.06.2009 APPELLANTS 1. West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. through the Chairman having its Head Office at Bidyut Bhaban, Block-DJ-5, Sector-II, Bidhan Nagar, Kolkata-700 091. 2. The Station Manager West Bengal Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. Sabang Group Electricity Supply P.O. Sabang, P.S. Sabang, Dist. Paschim Medinipur. 3. The Assistant Engineer West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. Debra Group Electric Supply, P.O. and P.S. Debra, Dist. Paschim Medinipur. 4. The Project Manager (R.E.Project VI), Midnapore, West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. P.O. Midnapore, Dist. Paschim Medinipur. 5. The Circle Manager Midnapore D-Circle, 190, Sahid Kshudiram Basu Road P.O. Midnapore, Dist. Paschim Medinipur. 6. The Zonal Manager, Midnapore (D) Zone West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. Midnapore Station Road P.O. Midnapore, Dist. Paschim Medinipur. RESPONDENTS/O.P.S Sri Nibaran Chandra Manna Resident of Village Lachmichak, P.O. Andulia, P.S. Sabang, Dist. Paschim Medinipur. BEFORE : MEMBER : MR. P.K.CHATTOPADHYAY MEMBER : MR. S.COARI FOR THE PETITIONER / APPELLANT : Mr. S.Nayak, Ld. Advocate FOR THE RESPONDENT / O.P.S.: Authorised representative. : O R D E R :
MR. S.COARI, LD. MEMBER The present Appeal has been directed against the judgement and order dt. 20.2.09 in Complaint Case No. 109/2008 wherein the Ld. District Forum disposed of the petition of complaint in favour of the complainant thereby directing the OP No. 2 to arrange electric connection at the premises of the complainant in terms of the quotation dt. 21.4.93 along with some prohibitory direction upon the OP No. 2 and also directing the OP No. 1 to ensure strict compliance of the order.
The complainants case before the Ld. District Forum, in brief, was that the complainant along with some other co-villagers applied for domestic electric connection from the OP No. 2 whereupon the complainant deposited requisite amount as per quotation issued in this regard by the OP No. 2. In spite of complying with all the requisite formalities and deposit of quotation amount the complainant was not facilitated with electric connection at the instance of the Ops and finding no alternative the complainant filed the petition of complaint for proper redressal.
The Ops contested the case by filing written objection thereby denying all the material averments of the petition of complaint contending inter alia that due to some practical difficulties the electric connection could not be afforded to the complainant and the electrification having been complete in the neighbouring areas it was expected that electric line would be given to the complainant and other co-villagers within a very short time. The petition of complaint has been filed after a long period due to which the same is barred by laws of limitation and that the petition of complaint was liable to be dismissed with cost.
The Ld. District Forum while disposing of the petition of complaint has observed that there was gross deficiency in service at the instance of the Ops. Without any rhyme and reason the Ops did not give electric connection to the complainant though the complainant had complied with all the requisite formalities including deposit of quotation amount and accordingly the Ld. District Forum disposed of the case on contest but without any order as to cost along with some directions as discussed above.
The only moot question that revolves round the present Appeal is as to whether the Ld. District Forum was justified enough in disposing of the case in the manner as discussed above.
DECISION WITH REASON At the time of hearing it has been submitted on behalf of the Appellants that the Ld. District Forum has caused great miscarriage of justice by admitting the petition of complaint which was hopelessly barred by limitation. According to the Ld. Advocate for the Appellants, though it is the specific case of the complainant/Respondent that the cause of action arose in the year 1993, but there was inordinate delay in filing the petition of complaint for which the complainant did not subscribe any tangible reason and cause and the Ld. District Forum without assigning any reason as to how the mischief of limitation was condoned by the Ld. District Forum and after admitting the petition of complaint disposed of the case to the detriment of the interest of the Appellants/Ops which has caused great miscarriage of justice. While elaboration on this point, the Ld. Advocate for the Appellants has submitted that the impugned judgement is silent on the point of limitation. In fact, there was no point on the part of the Ld. District Forum to bypass the point of limitation which is most vital in a case of present nature and in conclusion, it is submitted on behalf of the Appellants that the impugned judgement is not at all sustainable under the law and the direction passed upon the officers of the Electric Company is not just and proper and as such, the impugned judgement is liable to be set aside.
We have duly considered the submissions put forward on behalf of the Appellants and have also gone through the materials on record including the impugned judgement and find that in this case it is the specific case of the Complainant/Respondent that as per quotation of the Electric Company the complainant/Respondent deposited the requisite amount for obtaining electric line from the Appellants, but for reasons best known to the Appellants the electric line was never given to the Respondent and that there was no tangible reason assigned in this regard on behalf of the Appellants. In this connection, we find that the Appellants have tried to put up a case to the District Forum to the effect that due to some practical difficulties the electric line could not be given to the complainant and that the requisite infrastructure and works having been completed there was every possibility of giving the electric connection to the complainant in near future. If that be the actual state of affairs we find that it is an admitted position that the Appellants sat tight over the quotation amount already deposited by the complainant as per terms and conditions of the Appellant company and that there was no denial or intimation to the complainant at the instance of the Appellants as to what was the fate of the application of the complainant as regards getting electric connection.
From the very attitude of the Appellants, as it has become evident from the materials on record, we find that the Ld. District Forum was quite justified in disposing of the petition of complaint in favour of the complainant. As the matter stands, we are of confirmed view that question of limitation does not arise in the instant case at all. The Appellants should suffer for taking an indifferent attitude, as it has become evident from the materials on record in this case. Accordingly, we find no merit in the present Appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the Appeal fails.
Hence, it is ORDERED that the Appeal stands dismissed on contest but without any order as to cost.
However, we think that some sort of restriction should be imposed upon the Appellants in terms of the compliance of the impugned judgement passed by the Ld. District Forum and accordingly, we impose a cost of Rs. 10/- (Rupees ten only) per diem till the implementation of the directions of the impugned judgement.
MEMBER MEMBER