The instant appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for brevity, the Act) is at the instance of opposite party No.1 to impeach the Judgment/Final order dated 03.01.2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South 24 Parganas at Baruipur (in short, Ld. District Forum) in Consumer Complaint No.27/2016. By the impugned order, the Ld. District Forum allowed the complaint lodged by Respondent No.1 Sri Lalmohan Bayen with the following directions, viz. - (1) the OP No.1/appellant is directed to give new electric connection in the house of the Complainant within a month, (2) to pay compensation of Rs.5000/- and (3) to pay litigation cost of Rs.1000/-.

The Respondent No.1 herein being complainant lodged the complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the Ld. District Forum asserting that being owner of a piece of a bastu land and property in Mouza- Bijoynagar, P.S.- Joynagar, District- South 24 Parganas had applied for electric connection at his premises. On 01.07.2014 quotation was provided and the complainant deposited Rs.200/- as earnest money, service connection charges of Rs.200/- and also security deposit of Rs.590/- aggregating Rs.990/- only before Joynagar Group Electric Supply. The complainant has alleged that he has contacted with the OP No.1 for installation of the electric meter on several occasions but OP No.1 refused to install the same. Hence the respondent No.1 approached the Ld. District Forum with prayer for direction upon OP No.1 to install the electric meter, to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- etc.

The appellant being OP No.1 by filing a written version has stated that he was always ready to give the new connection to the complainant but the complainant has failed to make arrangement for free way leave or to provide any alternative route. It is further stated by OP No.1 that OP Nos. 2 to 5 raised strong objection against the electric line being drawn to the house of the complainant over their land and therefore, it was not possible for OP No.1 to give electric connection to the complainant. The OP No.1 has stated that there was no deficiency in services on the part of them.

The respondent Nos. 2 to 5/OP Nos. 2 to 5 by filing a separate written version have stated that they are co-owners of the complainant upon the land on which the house of the complainant is situated and the dispute being a boundary dispute it can only be determined by a competent Civil Court.

After assessing the materials on record, the Ld. District Forum by the impugned order allowed the complaint with certain direction upon OP No.1 as indicated above. Challenging the said order, OP No.1 has come up in this Commission with the present appeal.

Ld. Advocate for the appellant has submitted that the installation of electricity in the premises of respondent No.1 was effected on 19.02.2018 in compliance with the order passed by the Ld. District Forum. He has assailed the order only on the ground that as there was inter-se dispute between the co-owners and the respondent No.1 has failed to provide any free way leave as per regulation No.61 of W.B. Electricity Regulatory Commission, the order of compensation of Rs.5000/- should not have been awarded by the Ld. District Forum. The said submission was vehemently opposed by the Ld. Advocate for respondent No.1. None appears for respondent Nos. 2 to 5 to participate in the hearing of appeal.

I have given due consideration to the submission made by the Ld. Advocates appearing for the parties and scrutinised the materials on record.

The evidence on record indicates that the respondent No.1 had applied for electric connection at his premises lying and situated at Vill. + P.O.- Dakshin Bijoynagar, P.S.- Joynagar, District- South 24 Parganas. On the basis of such application, quotation was floated by the W.B. State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. (W.B.S.E.D.C.L.) on 01.07.2014 and immediately the respondent No.1 deposited earnest money of Rs.200/-, service connection charges of Rs.200/- and also security deposit of Rs.590/- totalling Rs.990/-.

It is alleged by the respondent No.1 that time and again he requested the Station Manager, Joynagar G.E.S to install the electric meter in his premises but he refused to do the same. On the other hand, it is stated on behalf of appellant that the co-owners of respondent No.1 has raised serious objection for which they could not provide service connection.

It is true that respondent Nos. 2 to 5 being co-owners of the property raised objection for which the respondent No.1 could not take appropriate steps. However, there is no document whatsoever to show that after receipt of quotation, the men of W.B.S.E.D.C.L. immediately visited the house of respondent No.1 to install connection. It would reveal that after lodging complaint on 01.04.2016, the Station Manager lodged one General Dairy with Joynagar P.S. stating that on 09.05.2016 at about 12.30 p.m. they visited the house of respondent No.1 to give effect electric connection but due to local objection it could not be possible. On 09.05.2016 for the first time the appellant informed respondent No.1 as to make arrangement of an alternative route for providing service connection through that route. Therefore, it is evident that in between 01.07.2014 and 01.04.2016 for long 21 months the appellant has shown masterly inactivity in adhering to the quotation submitted by respondent No.1.

Section 14 (1)(d) of the Act which is relevant for adjudication of the dispute in this case is as follows:

14 finding of the District forum. (1) if, after the proceeding conducted Under Section 13, the District Forum is satisfied that the goods complained against suffer from any of the defects specified in the complaint or that any of the allegations contained in the complaint about the services are proved, it shall issue an order to the opposite party directing him to do one or more of the following things, namely:

..................................

(d) to pay such amount as may be awarded by it as compensation to the consumer for any loss or injury suffered by the consumer due to the negligence of the opposite party.

The sine qua non for entitlement of compensation is proof or loss or injury suffered by the consumer due to negligence of the service provider. Once the said conditions are satisfied, the Consumer Forum would have to decide the quantum of compensation to which the consumer is entitled. There cannot be any dispute that the computation of compensation has to be fair, reasonable and commensurate to the loss or injury. In the case before hand, the Ld. District Forum has awarded a compensation of Rs.5000/- which does appeare to be unreasonable or unjustified in the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly when the Station Manager of Joynagar C.C.C. has failed to advance any reasonable explanation for non-communication the respondent No.1 to provide a free way leave till 09.05.2016.

Consequently, the appeal is dismissed on contest. There will be, however, no order as to costs in this appeal.

The impugned judgment/ final order is hereby affirmed.

The Registrar of the Commission is directed to send a copy of the order to the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South 24 Parganas at Baruipur for information.