West Bengal

Dakshin Dinajpur

CC/6/2013

Dhurba Nath Barman, S/O- Late Bhaben Chandra Barman - Complainant(s)

Versus

Assistant Engineer & station manager, Buniadpur Group Electricity, WBSEDCL - Opp.Party(s)

13 Jun 2013

ORDER

The complainant, Sri Dhurbanath Barman, on 30.12.2006 purchased an application form for a S.T.W. connection on payment of Rs. 1,000/- and submitted it along with Rs. 84,454/- as materials cost against receipt and despite repeated pursuasion such S.T.W. permanent connection was not extended.

 

            Thereafter, on 24.2.12 he submitted an application praying refund of said amount but no action was taken. He collected said money keeping his fertile land in mortgage. He has sustained a total loss of Rs.9,65,454/- on account of investment and mental pain and agony suffered during as such long time. Hence, the case.

 

            Having denied all the material allegations the OPs by a composite written version contested the case by submitting that there is no cause of action for this complaint and the question of sustaining loss does not arise at all because in every year taking temporary S.T.W. connection he used to cultivate his land. It is further contended that as per provision of S.T.W. connection, permission from Surface Water Investigation Department is necessary. Despite requests, the complainant could not collect the said permit and due to non-availability of said permit the OPs were unable to provide the S.T.W. connection permanently. Accordingly, prayer is for dismissal of the case.

 

            Admittedly, the complainant submitted an application purchased at the cost of Rs. 1,000/- from the OPs and also deposited Rs. 84,454/- as quotation money. Such application was made in 2006. Admittedly, no such connection has been given till date.

 

            To justify the inability to extend such connection Ld. Advocate for the contesting OPs attributed the same to be latches on the part of  the complainant as he failed to obtain and submit necessary permission from Surface Water Investigation Department. To fortify his submission he relied upon an office order no. 312 dt. 25.3.2011 subject matter of

 

                                                                                             

which is “mandatory submission of certificate of registration / permit from the authority under W.B. Ground Water Resources (Management, Control & Regulation), Act, 2005”. This order seems to have been issued in view of order of the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta wherefrom it appears that submission of certificate of registration / permit from the appropriate authority under W.B. Ground Water Resources (Management, Control & Regulation), Act, 2005, is mandatory before effecting service connection to a S.T.W. / submersible pump for extracting and using ground water. Accordingly, all concerned were advised to follow above direction strictly by that order. This order no. 312 dt. 25.3.11 issued by Chief Engineer (Distribution) is a departmental order which the ordinary applicants are not supposed to know unless made aware of.

 

            True it is that ignorance of law is no excuse. An applicant applying for S.T.W. connection must do it in accordance with provisions of the W. B. Ground Water Resources (Management Control & Regulation), Act, 2005. He cannot take advantage of ignorance of such act but he can take advantage of such ignorance in respect of the office order referred to above. Therefore, the OPs must have asked  for such permit from the complainant at least on 25.3.11 or soon thereafter, that is to say, after the above office order was issued.

 

            In above view of the matter, keeping the complainant’s application pending without asking him to submit aforesaid permit at least on 25.3.2011 or soon after issuance of above office order dt. 25.3.11 cannot be viewed otherwise than latches on the part of OPs. There is no acceptable material on record that the complainant was made aware of that office order making him obligated to obtain and submit aforesaid permission required for obtaining S.T.W. connection.

 

            It has been brought to our notice that in between 2006 & 2012, upon application of the complainant, temporary S.T.W. connection was extended to him twice. Even in the last occasion when such temporary connection  was  given,  there  is  no  material  to  suggest  that  the

 

                                                                                               

complainant was asked to submit necessary permission for permanent S.T.W. connection.

 

            Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that at least on and from 25.03.2011 when the above office order was issued, there was latches on the part of the OPs because the complainant was neither made aware nor was asked officially  to obtain and submit necessary permission for permanent S.T.W. connection.

 

            The plea of the complainant that for not extending permanent S.T.W. connection he could not cultivate his land and sustained huge financial loss can not be accepted because he could do so by taking temporary S.T.W. connection when he admittedly had done so on two occasions.

 

            Therefore we find latches on the part of both sides but such latches on the part of the OPs on and from 25.03.2011 as already pointed out must be subjected to compensation in favour of the complainant. We like to mean here that the quotation money of Rs.84,454/- that was lying with the OPs could easily fetch interest had it been kept in Bank by the OPs. Therefore we are of the considered opinion that the complainant is entitled to interest on Rs. 84,454/- for the period from 25.03.2011 till the date it is refunded to the complainant.

 

            Admittedly the compliment submitted application on 24.2.12 seeking refund of his quotation money together with interest there on but was not duly attended to for which the complainant had to file this case incurring  expenditure. Thus, there was cause of action for filing of this case having failed to get back the amount paid to the OPs as per his prayer dt. 24.2.12. the complainant filed this case within the period of limitation and hence the case is maintainable. He is also entitled to litigation cost. No doubt during the long time since from submission of application for S.T.W. connection till filing of this case the complainant had to undertake physical and mental labor. So in that score he should be compensated.

 

                                                                                              

            In view of the findings made as above the complaint is liable to be allowed and is allowed accordingly. Hence it is.

                                                O R D E R E D

 

            That the OPs are jointly and severely directed to pay a sum of Rs.84,454/- together with interest thereon @ 9% p.a. to be calculated for the period from 25.03.2011 till payment.

 

            The OPs shall also pay  a sum of Rs. 8,000/- as compensation and a sum of Rs.4,000/- as litigation cost. Such payment  shall be made by an A/c Payee cheque in favour of the complainant within a month from the date of this order. Out of the compensation amount the complainant shall deposit Rs.2,000/- in the  State Consumer Welfare Fund (A/c No. 0093000100310261) within 7(seven) days from the date of such receipt and will inform the Forum within 7(seven) days from the date of such deposits.               

 

            Let plain copies of this order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost.