State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Superintending Engineer vs Sri Bhabani Prasad Das on 18 April, 2013
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission West Bengal BHABANI BHAVAN (GROUND FLOOR) 31, BELVEDERE ROAD, ALIPORE KOLKATA 700 027 SC.CASE NO. : FA/101/12 (Arisen out of Order Dated 12/12/2011 in Case No. 06/2008 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Purba Midnapur) DATE OF FILING : 13.3.12 DATE OF FINAL ORDER: 18.04. 2013 APPELLANTS : 1. Superintending Engineer, Purba Medinipur R.E. Construction Camp, West Bengal State Electricity Board (Now West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd), P.O & P.S Tamluk, District- Purba Medinipur, 2. Divisional Engineer, Tamluk R.E. Construction Camp, Nimtola, Tamlok, District- Purba Medinipur RESPONDENTS : 1. Sri Bhabani Prasad Das, 2. Sri Radhika Prasad Das, 3. Sri Deba Prasad Das, All sons of Lt. Bhuban Mohan Das, Village- Gopalpur, P.O. Reapara, P.S. Nandigram, District- Purba Medinipur BEFORE : MEMBER : MR. D.BHATTACHARYA MEMBER : MR. J.BAG FOR THE APPELLANT: Mr. Srijan Nayak, Ld. Advocate. FOR THE RESPONDENTS : Mr. Aveek Ray Mukherjee, Ld. Advocate. : O R D E R :
Mr. J.Bag, Ld. Member The present appeal is directed against the Order dated 12.12.2011 of the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Purba Medinipur in Consumer Case No. 06 of 2008, whereby Ld. Forum below allowed the complaint on contest with direction upon OPs to effect electric connection in the houses of the Complainants .
The complaint case, in brief, was as follows:
The Complainants submitted a representation on 25.02.2002 to the Asst. Engineer Tamluk Rural Electrification (Construction) Division , being the official of the then WBSEB ( at present known as WBSEDCL ) for electric service connection in their residential houses situated on Plot Nos. 1970/1971/1972 and 2016 at Mouza Gopalpur, under P.S. Nandigram , District Purba Medinipur. There was no response from the O.P. that time. A Writ Petition was filed in the the Honble High Court Calcutta but no favourable result followed. They submitted another representation on 17.07.2006 and the Savapati, Nandigram II, Panchayat Samity recommended their case under MPLAD Scheme vide Memo. No. 286 dt. 18.07.2006. OP No.1 issued quotation vide Memo No. PMRECC/Sche 79/172 dated 10.08.2006 in the name of the Savapati Nandigram II, Panchayat Samity for depositing Rs.15,307/- only. The Complainants deposited the same on 14.08.2006. Two extension poles for giving electric connection in the houses of the Complainants were erected, but electric connection was not given . Lawyers notice was issued on 25.07.2007. No action being taken by OPs , a consumer complaint case was lodged.
O.P No.1 did not turn up, while OP No.2 contested the case by filing written version contending inter alia that they issued work order for erecting two electric poles for giving electric connection but due to objection raised by one Sunil Kr. Jana of the locality and in the absence of alternative route for drawing electric line to the houses of the Complainants, electric connection could not be effected. Ld. Forum after having heard both sides and after perusal of materials on record proposed to direct the OPs to effect electric connection to the houses of the Complainants through Plot No. 1996 by erecting two poles on the public road as shown in red ink in the hand sketch map filed by the Complainants indicating an alternative route for effecting electric connection to the houses of the complainants through plot No. 1996 owned by the complainants (which is adjacent to the public road).
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of the Ld. Forum below, the Appellants have come up before this Commission with the prayer for direction for setting aside and / or quashing the impugned order and for staying operation of the said order on the grounds that though it is the duty of the Complainants as per the regulation 46 of West Bengal Electricity Regulations Commission dated 31st May 2010 and as per Clause 13.8 of the same Regulations, to arrange way leave and free access to the locals, the Complainants failed to provide such way leave for electric connection. Further, Sri Sunil Kr Jana who raised objection to the extension of electric line was not made a party in the complaint petition. Again, the quotation was raised for two poles only but the alternative route as suggested by the Complainants required five poles, apart from the fact that such route is also disputed and not free from hazards or restraints. Unless the Complainants provide free way leave , they are not in a position to provide electricity to the Complainants houses . They also questioned the authority of the Ld. Forum below to direct them to erect poles at the cost of the service providing company when the Complainants are not complying with necessary formalities. Accordingly, they prayed for allowing the appeal against the decision of the Ld. Forum below.
We have gone through the appeal, the impugned judgment, the petition of complaint and the written objection filed by the OP/Appellant together with annexures thereto including letters written to the project Manager Purba Medinipur RE Project by owners of plot No. 1993, 1996, 2037, 2038 and 2039. BNA filed by the Appellant has been perused . Ld. Advocates appearing for both the Appellant and the Respondent have been heard. LCR called for has been consulted .
Ld. Advocate appearing for the Appellant submitted that though after issue of work order for erection of extension poles, the contractor erected two poles along the route initially suggested by the complainants , electric line could not be drawn due to severe objection raised by Sunil Kr Jana of the locality and due to the failure of the Complainants to show any alternative route for drawing the electric connection. In the absence of way leave and free access which is the responsibility of the prospective consumer, the electric connection could not be effected.
Ld. Advocate appearing for the Respondent submitted that an alternative route has been shown in the face of objection raised by the adjacent plot owners. A sketch map showing such alternative route has been submitted before the Ld. Forum below and the Forum having considered the feasibility of effecting electric line over the plots of land ordered the OP to erect additional poles on the public road. Still the OPs have not yet effected such electric line which is tantamount to deficiency in service on their part.
There is no dispute that the OP took steps to erect two poles for extension of electric line to the houses of the complainants. But as they met with objection from the land owners of the plots adjacent to the houses of the Complainants they could not proceed in the matter of providing electric line to the Complainants houses. There is also no dispute that as stated by the Appellants in their written version Page 3 Paragraph 2 , no service connection charge has been received by the Appellant . Admittedly, there was the need for submission of an alternative route through which electric line would be extended up to the Complainants houses.
It appears from the order of the Ld. Forum below that they relied upon a hand sketch map showing an alternative route for extension of electric line and such map was submitted by the Complainant on 04.02.2011 while the proceedings of the complaint case were going on . Ld. Forum below accepted the said map . It is obvious that the Complainants drew up the map showing a position as would be advantageous to them. Ld. Forum failed to observe that in the map the proposed route did not connect Plot Nos. 2016,1970,1971 and 1972 straightway . Such route is shown along Plot No. 1996 which again is owned by some Sk. Safiul , Sk Rabiul and Sk. Habib and those plot owners filed their written objections in the matter of extension of electric line over plot Nos. 1996. It is apparent that the alternative route does not ensure free way leave for the purpose of extension of electric line to the houses of the Complainant.
A hand sketch map drawn by the Asstt Engineer and Package- in-Charge - 9 WBSEDCL Tamluk (Page 37 of the Petition of Appeal) shows that the alternative route is also not free from dispute as the line would have to be taken over Plot No.1996 where the house of Sk.
Rabiul is located .
From the above facts and materials on record it is clear that the alternative route as suggested by the Complainant in preference to the original route does not ensure free way leave which is necessary for extension of the electric line up to the houses of the Complainants. The Appellants cannot be blamed under the circumstances for deficiency in service in so far as the Complainant /Respondent have not provided free way leave and does not prove by any cogent evidence that the Appellants have neglected in giving electric connection after compliance of such formalities as are required to be complied with by the Complainants themselves. The appeal succeeds in the result.
Hence, Ordered that the appeal be and the same is allowed on contest without, however, any cost. The impugned order is set aside.
LCR be returned to the Ld. Forum below.
MR. J.BAG MR. D.BHATTACHARYA MEMBER MEMBER