DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPLUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS ,
Amantran Bazar, Kulpi Road, Baruipur, Kolkata – 144.
C.C. CASE NO. __42___ OF ___2015_
DATE OF FILING : 22.1.2015_ DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT:4/05/2017_
Present : President : Udayan Mukhopadhyay
Member(s) : Subrata Sarker
COMPLAINANT : Malina Mondal, w/o late Dulal Mondal of
204, Diamond Harbour Road, P.S Parnasree, Kolkata – 60.
O.P/O.Ps : 1. Sri Rupeshwar Das, s/o late Pannalal Das.
2. Geeta Das nee (Kool), d/o late Pannalal Das,w/o Bhatipada Kool
3. Sabita Das, d/o late Pannalal Das.
4. Anita Mondal,w/o late Arup Mondal
All of 200, Diamond Harbour Road, P.S Parnasree, Kol-60.
5. C.E.S.C Ltd. District Engineer, Taratala Road, Kolkata-88.
______________________________________________________________________________
J U D G E M E N T
Sri Udayan Mukhopadhyay, President
This is an application under section 12 of the C.P Act, 1986 filed by the complainant who claims herself an old lady and Senior Citizen and is residing at premises no.204, Diamond Harbour Road, under P.S. Parnasree , Kolkata as a tenant . It is the further case of the complainant that her husband was inducted as a monthly tenant under the then landlord Pannalal Das ,since deceased, in respect of one bed room together with one kitchen along with verandah in premises no.204, D.H Road and they are enjoying electricity after the tenancy i.e since the time of induction paying electricity charges to the landlord Pannalal Das since them and after the death of Pannalal Das the present O.P nos. 1 o 4 who are the legal heirs in respect of the property became landlord and complainant is depositing rent to the Rent Controller at Alipore in the name of O.P nos. 1 to 4 ,since an ejectment suit was filed in the Court of second Civil Judge, Jr. division at Alipore and the said suit was dismissed on 30.7.2017 against the O.P .O.P nos. 1 to 4 also preferred an appeal challenging the said judgment which is being no. TA 278 of 2007 and said appeal is now pending at Ld. Additional District Judge ,16th Court and in the said appeal complainant fled one application under section 151 C.P.C for getting new electric meter in her name in the said tenanted premises from the CESC Ltd. O.P-5 at her own cost. The Ld. District Judge was also pleased to allow the prayer of the complainant permitting the complainant to take electricity at the tenanted premises by a new meter in her name from CEST at her own cost and risk. Thereafter, complainant filed an application to the CESC authority paying Rs.200/- only for getting new meter and O.P-5 CESC Ltd. Also went to inspect on4.9.2014 at about 12.30 p.m at the meter room which has been installed at premises no.204A, D.H Road for installation of electric meter in respect of tenanted portion at premises no.204, D.H Road. But the O.P nos. 1 to 4 illegally and wrongfully raised obstruction and as a result CESC authority failed to inspect the premises for installation of the said meter in the meter room of the premises. Complainant also informed the matter to the local P.S and ultimately filed this case because electricity is essential thing in human life and prays for a decree or order directing the O.P nos. 1 to 4 to open the padlock of the meter room at premises no.204A, D.H Road at the time of inspection and installation of new meter by the CESC ,O.P-5 and also prays for direction to CESC to install new meter in the name of the complainant at premises no.204A, D.H Road or electric connection from the meter room at premises no.204A ,as the case may be. Complainant also prays for compensation against the O.P nos. 1 to 4 Rs.10,000/- and cost etc.
The O.P nos. 1 to 4 contested the case by filing written objection and has denied all the allegations leveled against him. It is the positive case of the O.Ps that in the tenanted premises there was or is no electric installation or connection at any point of time and also stated that in premises no.204 D.H Road there is no electric line or installation. So, the question of enjoying electricity being a tenant of premises no.204, D.H Road does not arise at all. It has also stated that complainant is not paying rent to all the legal heirs and successors of late pannalal Das before the Rent Controller. So, deposit of rent before the Rent Controller in the name of the O.P nos. 1 to 4 is invalid deposit. It is the further case of the O.Ps that complainant is a tenant of premises no.204, D.H Road where there is no electric connection line from the very beginning . So no meter room is there and complainant got order to install electricity at premises no. 204, D.H Road , but she is not trying to install meter in her name at premises no.204A, D.H Road. So, premises no.204A,D.H Road is another premises and there is only a commercial connection . So, complainant cannot avail of electricity from premises no.204A, D.H Road since she is a tenant of premises no.204, D.H Road . Hence, the O.Ps pray for dismissal of the case.
The O.P-5 CESC contested the case and submitted that complainant applied on 1.9.2014 for new electric meter of 0.5 kv domestic load at existing meter room where the supply at premises no.204A, D.H Road being LP no.483 exists and inspection was carried out on 4.9.2014 ,but due to strong objection raised at the said premises by the O.P nos. 1 to 4 they returned without inspection. It has further stated that this O.P also deputed authorized person to carry out inspection but due to strong objection of O.P nos. 1 to 4 they returned without inspection. Thereafter the O.P-5 sent a letter to the complainant on 17.10.2014 requesting free access to the meter board . it has submitted by the O.P-5 that if the said premises is undivided property as per law then complainant is not entitled to install separate service line in the said premises and also stated that if the complainant wants to enjoy electricity then O.P will enjoy new meter in the name of the complainant at the existing meter board position of the said premises after compliance of all other formalities by the complainant. The O.P-5 also wants to ventilate the Rules and Regulations for procedure of giving new electric connection in para no.8 and lastly says that if free access is there they are ready to install the meter . Hence, O.P-5 prays for dismissal of the case.
Points for decision in this case is whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps or not.
Decision with reasons
Admittedly complainant’s husband was inducted by the father and husband, as the case may be, of O.P nos. 1 to 4 and so long Pannalal Das ,the original owner, was alive the problem was not cropped up and since Pannalal Das , the original owner, died and the original tenant Dulal Mondal, the husband of the complainant, died the problem has cropped up.
It is the case of the O.P-1 to 4 that there was no electric connection in premises no.204, D.H Road, Kolkata and electric connection is existing at premises no. 204A, D.H Road. So far we came across from admitted submission that premises nos. 204 and 204 A is situated side by side and the tenant is enjoying the same, may be the property is undivided. So, the contention fo the O.P-5 CESC that if the said premises is undivided property as per law then complainant is not entitled to install separate service line in the same premises. But if the complainant wants to enjoy electricity then O.P will install a new meter in the name of the complainant at the existing meter board position of the said premises after compliance of all formalities.
In this regard, CESC should aware that electricity and water supply is the fundamental right of any citizen. So, they cannot impose where they will give electricity and where not , particularly when, the landlord herein the legal heirs of original landlord wanted to evict the complainant/tenant from the tenanted premises and after defeating the case appeal is pending and order of Civil Court was also there for giving electricity. But it was not for the reasons best known to the CESC Authority. It was the duty of the CESC soon after the objection is there take assistance of the local P.S ,but inevitable did not happen, that is why, the constitutional right in view of Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been clearly flouted by the O.P-5 CESC authority.
In this regard, for the knowledge of the legal department of CESC authority, particularly when verification was made by Pradip Bhattacharya who is General Manager of CESC (Legal) ,that is why knowledge of the Legal Department is badly needed, otherwise the Ld. Advocate of the CESC ltd. who is a very competent person namely Suvendu Das is unable to convince them regarding the position of Law. For the guidance of the Legal Department we should point out the reported decision in AIR 2008 Calcutta 47 and thereafter so many decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India wherein it has observed that In view of the Electricity Act Section 43 : Ground of Electric Connection and in the said reported case complainant was an occupier (not tenant) ,even then Hon’ble Court has observed that petitioner occupying premises as licencee cannot be equated as an unlawful occupant or trespasser merely because litigations are pending between the parties. Since petitioner is an occupier under section 43(3) as per definition given in Black’s Law Dictionary is entitled to get electric connection. It is a constitutional right in view of Article 21 of the Constitution of India ,wherein it has been specifically observed that right to life and liberty of Article 21 “because no one in the modern days can survive without electricity”. So, all these thing should be considered very minutely by the Legal Department before passing any opinion. It is expected to take all endeavour for supplying new electric connection with meter when Ld. Civil Court also passed order . But inspite of that electric line is not given taking different pleas. The objections of the O.P nos. 1 to 4 should not play in the mind by any Electrical Authority ,herein O.P-5 since it is a constitutional right. No one can prevent from the said right, that is why, Ld. Civil Court allowed the prayer for new electric connection.
It should be mentioned here that it is the headache of the landlord O.P nos. 1 to 4 from where the electric connection will be given and it cannot be believed that there was no electric connection in the tenanted premises situated at 204, D.H Road , particularly when the meter was installed in premises no.204A, D.H Road as per desire of the original owner or his predecessor and line was given from that meter to the tenanted portion, that is why, they were enjoying electric energy since long and the lady Senior Citizen ,complainant, is suffering for want of electricity which she has enjoyed during the lifetime of her husband or at the time of induction, as the case may be, and now she should be deprived of that benefit and if not given, it will be amount to part eviction from the premises ,that is why, subsequent owners whoa re the legal heirs of Pannalal Das adopted this tactics by disconnecting the line taking advantage that meter is installed in premises no.204A nor at 204, D.H Road. If we apply our common sense, then one thing should come out that without having electricity no one is ready to take any tenanted portion when there is an electric connection run over the said area . It is also very very natural that original landlord Pannalal Das has given electricity to the tenanted portion of the complainant’s husband wherein wife was a beneficiary and now she is a complainant, otherwise complainant’s husband would not have taken the rented house.
In this mitigating circumstances we want to see that complainant should get electric energy and to that effect the O.P-5 CESC is requested to take fresh application. In this backdrop we direct CESC to send a suitable person to inspect the tenanted portion of the complainant and if there exists previous enjoyment of electric connection, then definitely it was given by the predecessor of O.P nos. 1 to 4 from the meter existed in premises no.204A and no objection was raised at that juncture by the CESC authority, O.P-5, that is why after verifying all these things complainant’s husband agreed to accept the tenancy from the predecessor of O.P nos. 1 to 4 and the present landlords stepped into the shoes of their husband and father, as the case may be. So, in relates to tenancy they cannot change the view of their father or husband.
It should be mentioned here that if that connection was not irregular in the eye of CESC authority, then CESC easily can provide electric connection in that manner and at best one sub-meter can be installed by the complainant in the tenanted portion and thereby the consumption of the tenanted portion can easily be assessed and complainant/tenant will pay the said amount to the O.P nos. 1 to 4 and in that way the problem can be solved and if not ,then when the CESC authority allowed such type of connection from 204A to 204 .D. H Road, then they have to install a new meter in the tenanted portion at the cost of the complainant and at that time liberal approach should be made and the line only can be given without minimum cost which will be borne initially by the complainant and that amount will be deducted from time to time from the rent paying in the name of the complainant, because they are the tenant and they are not the owner of premises no. 204, D.H Road. It is the duty of the land owners to provide electricity and thereby the clever tactics of O.P nos. 1 to 4 can be stopped for eviction of the tenant who is a lady senior citizen.
With that observation we find that there is deficiency in service on t he part of the O.P nos. 1 to 4 mainly and partly on the part of O.P-5 ,since they have not taken any steps from Police authority inspite of order of the Ld. Civil Court.
Hence,
Ordered
That the application under section 12 of the C.P Act, 1986 is allowed on contest agaisnt all the O.Ps.
The O.P nos. 1 to 4 are directed to provide electricity from the existing meter room as complainant is a tenant inducted by their father or husband, as the case may be, failing which O.P nos. 1 to 4 has to bear the cost of taking electricity by the complainant at premises no.204, D.H Road, although initially that amount has to be paid by the complainant to the O.P-5 and the said amount will be deducted from the complainant’s rent of the premises month by month.
The complainant is also directed to place the copy of the order before the Rent Controller and Rent Controller will be realized why the rent was not paid and the amount which will be deducted will be considered as rent of the premises, that is why, the complainant can save his tenancy right. This direction has to be complied by the O.P nos. 1 to 4 within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which O.P nos. 1 to 4 have to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.25000/- and cost to the tune of Rs.5000/- if the electric line is provide by the O.P nos. 1 to 4 ,then the compensation and cost amount will not require to be paid to the complainant .
No cost or compensation is imposed upon the O.P-5 CESC authority at this stage.
O.P-5 CESC is hereby directed to take all sorts of initiative to install the electric connection with a minimum cost when both the premises are situated side by side taking into consideration as a social help to the poor lady senior citizen being the complainant, that is why, we restrain ourselves from imposing any cost and compensation against the O.P-5 CESC, so that they can exercise their power liberally in view of this order.
The Officer-In-Charge of Parnasree P.S is hereby directed to give all sorts of co-operation in taking into consideration, that electricity is a fundamental right in view of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, to any citizen of India ,until and unless that person is evicted by due process of law. It is the dictum of the superior Court. So, Officer-In-Charge of Parnasree P.S will act accordingly, failing which, it will be considered that they are unable to give services to the poor lady senior citizen which is against the principle of good governance .
O.P-5 CESC is also directed to produce the order to the Parnasree P.S and after taking assistance of the P.S concerned new meter be installed in the tenanted portion or as given previously from the premises no.204A, D.H Road ,Calcutta, failing which complainant is at liberty to execute the order though this Forum.
Let a plain copy of the judgment be supplied to the complainant free of cost and a plain copy be sent to the Opposite parties at their address as mentioned in the Cause title through this Forum free of cost. Office to do the needful.
Member President
Dictated and corrected by me
President
The judgment in separate sheet is ready and is delivered in open Forum. As it is ,
Ordered
That the application under section 12 of the C.P Act, 1986 is allowed on contest agaisnt all the O.Ps.
The O.P nos. 1 to 4 are directed to provide electricity from the existing meter room as complainant is a tenant inducted by their father or husband, as the case may be, failing which O.P nos. 1 to 4 has to bear the cost of taking electricity by the complainant at premises no.204, D.H Road, although initially that amount has to be paid by the complainant to the O.P-5 and the said amount will be deducted from the complainant’s rent of the premises month by month.
The complainant is also directed to place the copy of the order before the Rent Controller and Rent Controller will be realized why the rent was not paid and the amount which will be deducted will be considered as rent of the premises, that is why, the complainant can save his tenancy right. This direction has to be complied by the O.P nos. 1 to 4 within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which O.P nos. 1 to 4 have to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.25000/- and cost to the tune of Rs.5000/- if the electric line is provide by the O.P nos. 1 to 4 ,then the compensation and cost amount will not require to be paid to the complainant .
No cost or compensation is imposed upon the O.P-5 CESC authority at this stage.
O.P-5 CESC is hereby directed to take all sorts of initiative to install the electric connection with a minimum cost when both the premises are situated side by side taking into consideration as a social help to the poor lady senior citizen being the complainant, that is why, we restrain ourselves from imposing any cost and compensation against the O.P-5 CESC, so that they can exercise their power liberally in view of this order.
The Officer-In-Charge of Parnasree P.S is hereby directed to give all sorts of co-operation in taking into consideration, that electricity is a fundamental right in view of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, to any citizen of India ,until and unless that person is evicted by due process of law. It is the dictum of the superior Court. So, Officer-In-Charge of Parnasree P.S will act accordingly, failing which, it will be considered that they are unable to give services to the poor lady senior citizen which is against the principle of good governance .
O.P-5 CESC is also directed to produce the order to the Parnasree P.S and after taking assistance of the P.S concerned new meter be installed in the tenanted portion or as given previously from the premises no.204A, D.H Road ,Calcutta, failing which complainant is at liberty to execute the order though this Forum.
Let a plain copy of the judgment be supplied to the complainant free of cost and a plain copy be sent to the Opposite parties at their address as mentioned in the Cause title through this Forum free of cost. Office to do the needful.
Member President
