DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PURULIA
CONSUMER COMLAINT No. 41 OF 2006
Date of Filing: 14th August 2006
Date of Order: 30th January 2009
Complainant Opposite Party
Sri Puran Chandra Kuiry, The Station Manager,
S/o. Sri Nakul Chandra Kuiry, Bagmundi Group Electric Supply,WBSEB,
Vill. & P.O. Tunturi, P.O. & P.S. Bagmundi,
Police Station: Bagmundi, District: Purulia.
District: Purulia.
Present:
1. Shri R.N. Sarkar, President.
2. Smt. S. Sengupta (Santra), Member.
For the complainant : Sri P. Roy, Adv.
For the O.P. : Sri N.S. Mukherjee, Adv.
Order No. 36, dated 06.02.2009/C.C.No. 41 of 2006
Complainant’s case in a narrow compass is that he has cleared the pending electricity bills for the period 02/06 & 03/06 along with disconnection and reconnection charges on 18.4.2006 to the O.P. Station Manager, Bagmundi Group electric supply, WBSEB, District: Purulia against his consumer No. A/561346, but on 26.7.2006 two persons viz. Buddheswar Mahato and Uttam Mahato from the office of O.P. illegally disconnected his electricity service. The complainant informed the matter to local G.P. Member and to the O.P. on 27.7.2006 and subsequently to the officer-in-charge, Bagmundi P.S. He also stated that due to illegal disconnection the studies of his daughter and son have been seriously hampered and this give rise to the dispute for the reliefs as have been prayed for in his petition of complaint.
The O.P. in his version has denied the allegation of deficiency in service and has claimed that the complaint is misconceived one and is far from the actual state of affair. The O.P. has admitted that on 26.7.2006 two persons of his office as alleged in the petition had been to Tunturi village for disconnection of electric service of one Dipak Singh Mura from the Pole where the complainant was provided electric connection. In course of physical disconnection of the defaulter’s line the service line of complainant might have became loose which resulted fault in the line of complainant. The O.P. also stated that on 26.7.2006 at 18.30 hrs. a complaint of no electricity in the premises of complainant was received and since there was no scope to attend the fault and the complainant was assured in reply to the phone call of complainant that he would send his staff in the next morning. Accordingly the O.P. deputed two staff of his office on 27.7.2006 to attend the above complaint but unfortunately his staffs were abused in filthy languages by the son of the complainant and were detained for two hours rather they were restrained to rectify the line. The O.P. due to aggressive attitude of the complainant lodged complaint at Bagmundi P.S. vide his office memo No. BAM/B/43., dated 27.7.2006 which was entered in G.D.E. No. 668, dated 27.7.2006 of Bagmundi P.S. The O.P. has denied having any knowledge of information to O/C. Bagmundi P.S. and Member, Tunturi G.P. about such disconnection. It is also stated in the averment that O/C. Bagmundi P.S. has taken steps for drawing up proceeding u/S. 107 Cr. P.C. against the complainant and his son. The O.P. has further submitted that on 05.9.2006 he himself along with the help of police of Bagmundi P.s. had been to the village of complainant at about 3.30 p.m. to rectify the fault in the service line of the complainant but the complainant resisted to perform his duties saying that he would not allow him to rectify the fault without the order of the Forum. The O.P. has denied any cause of action and has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
From the pleadings of both parties the following points are taken up for effective disposal of the case.
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the O.P.?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?
Both the points are taken up together for consideration in the light of the available evidence and argument of both sides as they are interrelated:
Point No. 1 & 2:
Complainant has filed his affidavit in chief and has bee cross-examined by the O.P. P.W. 1 has admitted that electric line to his premises was provided from the same pole wherefrom lines to four other persons were also provided. It is also admitted that he informed the O.P. on 26.7.2006 evening over phone about the incident of no electricity. He has however denied the visit of staff of O.P. on the following morning, restraining the staff of O.P. during restoration and the knowledge of any complaint against him and his son before police. On further cross-examination P.W. 1 admitted that he received a notice u/S. 107 Cr. P.C. The P.W.1 has filed photocopies of bill dated 19.4.2006, payment for bill period 02/06 to 06/06 dated 28.4.2006, receipt for reconnection and disconnection charge dated 28.7.2006, copy of written complaint to O.P. without date for illegal disconnection of electric line, one postal receipt dated 27.7.2006 for a consignment to O.P., complaint to O/C. Bagmundi P.S. dated 28.7.2006 for disconnection of the line, one postal receipt dated 28.7.2006 for a consignment to O/C. Bagmundi P.S. and complaint to G.P., Member without date for illegal disconnection which are marked annexure “A” to “G”.
Let us scrutinize the evidence advanced by the O.P. during proceeding of this case.
The O.P. during his examination in chef has filed two photocopies of letters dated 27.7.2006 & 01.09.2006 addressed to O/C. Bagmundi P.S., copy of C.C.No. 609/06(command certificate) dated 05.9.2006 of Bagmundi P.S. , copy of disconnection order dated 19.6.2006 and copy of letter of Buddheswar Mahato, H.R.G/R Shramik on 26.7.2006 which have been marked exhibits “A”, “B”, “C”, “D” & “E” respectively. He has corroborated the written objection filed to that extent that he received complaint of disconnection of the line of complainant over phone on 26.7.2006, sending of two persons for rectification of electric line and detention of men by the complainant for two hours who were also not allowed to rectify the fault. He also corroborated that he lodged complaint to local P.S. over the detention of his men and with the help of police he along with technical personal went to the house of the complainant on 05.9.2006 for rectification of electric line but the complainant did not allow in doing so. He has also denied any negligency on his part and also denied the suggestion of complainant that no line of Dipak Singh Mura was provided from the same pole of complainant, absence of loose connection and deposition of carbon in the line, not detaining his men to rectify the fault etc.
On careful scrutiny of evidences of both sides on record it appears transparent to this Forum that electric line to the premises of complainant was supplied from a pole wherefrom four other consumers of the O.P. were also provided electric lines and the service line of Dipak Singh Mura who was among four other consumer of O.P. was physically disconnected on 26.7.2006 for non-payment of outstanding dues. It is also transparent that the complainant lodged complaint to the O.P. over phone on 26.7.2006 evening for no electricity in his premises and he sent his men on 27.7.2006 morning to rectify the fault as no order for disconnection of the line was passed nor even there was no report of his men engaged to disconnect the line of Dipak Singh Mura on 26.7.2006. It is also prima facie established that O.P. was not allowed to rectify the fault by the complainant so far as the Ext. “A” to “C” are concerned, the reason best known to the complainant and there is every reason to believe on going through the documents vide Annexure “C” to “D” that the complainant took the incident of fault in his electric line on the day of disconnection of the line of Dipak Singh Mura as prestige issue. The issue has been made complicated by not accepting the opinion of the O.P. behind the reason of no electricity to the premises of complainant after the incident of physical disconnection of the line of Dipak Singh Mura. The question, whether there was physical disconnection of the line of the complainant or whether the service line of complainant got loose during physical disconnection of the line of Dipak Singh Mura emanating from the same pole?
In order to come to the final conclusion we have given our careful consideration to the fact that the allegation of physical disconnection is the outcome of a psychological phenomenon of the complainant and not based on technical examination, similarly the statement of the O.P. that due to deposit of carbon and loose contact of the wire with the line at the pole the electricity to the premises was interrupted is considered an opinion of technical personnel and therefore, is accepted as the probable cause of power failure to the premises of the complainant.
In our view, there is no reason to believe that there is deficiency of service on the part of O.P., so far as the discussion made herein above.
It further appears from record that by an interim order No. 6, dated 01.11.2006 of this Forum the O.P. was directed to cause restoration of supply of electricity to the premises of complainant by rectification of fault or by physical reconnection and the same was complied on 05.11.2006 as it appears from a declaration in presence of four witnesses.
Both the above points are thus disposed of in the negative.
Proper fees have been paid.
Hence,
O r d e r e d
That Consumer Complaint No. 41 of 2006 is dismissed on contest against the O.P. (The Station Manager, Bagmundi Group Electric Supply, WBSEB, P.O. & P.S. Bagmundi, District: Purulia) with no order as to the costs.
Let a certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of charge.