JUDGEMENT
This complaint is filed by the complainant u/S. 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service against the OP-1&2 as the said Ops did not provide her electric connection and the Op-3 is raising obstruction in providing electric connection at her premises.
1
The brief fact of the case of the complainant is that she has been residing at her father’s premises since April 1999. She desired to take new service connection at this premises and accordingly she paid application fee of Rs. 5/- on 19.11.2012 to the Op-1 under proper money receipt. Further she deposited earnest money of Rs. 200/- together with the prescribed application form on 22.11.2012. After long 14 months of receipt of the above prescribed application form the Op-1 by issuing a letter dated 25.01.2014 intimated the complainant that due to objection raised by Manirul Hasan Sk. - OP-3 the connection could not be effected and the same is pending. The OP-1&2 requested the complainant to submit way leave permission to overcome the above-mentioned problem. The complainant submitted the certificate issued by Pradhan, Nityanandapur Gram Panchayat under Bhatar Police Station dated 21.8.2008 wherein it is stated that Sahina Begum is the occupier of the premises, where she desires to get service connection, being her father’s property it is also mentioned in the certificate that the complainant is a permanent inhabitant of the said GP and got married with Fazlur Rahaman through arranged marriage on 28.4.1999 and since then they are living in the cottage house at this premises over Plot no. 1397, Khatian no. 233 and JL no. 71 in Mouza Bolgona and subsequently the complainant constructed latrine and arranged water service in this cottage and in the year 2005 constructed a two room ‘pucca’ residential house at this premises with verbal permission of her mother Batula Bibi. The entire cost towards this construction was borne by her. Pradhan has stated that the statement made hereinabove to his knowledge. From the said certificate it is revealed according to the complainant she is the occupier of her father’s premises where she is intending to get new electric service connection for which she has deposited earnest money and Panchayat has also issued NOC in this respect. On the basis of her application Bardhaman District Consumer Protection and Welfare Centre has requested the Ops on 21.02.2014 to intimate them why Mr. Hasan raised objection and whether he has any authority to raise objection and also asked a copy of his written objection in this regard. The said Welfare Centre also enclosed a lay out plan showing the position of the existing and proposed pole, existing and proposed line and position of meter.
2
Thus the supply of his would get way leave to overcome the problem and supply electricity. But till date the OP-1&2 have neither made any response regarding supply of electricity nor taken ay step in this matter. Thereafter the complainant being compelled has filed this complaint against the Ops for getting electric connection in her name. In this connection the complainant has stated that since her marriage she is residing at this house constructed by her own cost and effort over her father’s land and since she has been residing in this house as certified by the Panchayat Pradhan now she became the occupier of the premises where she is intending to get new electric connection. As per Electricity Act, 2003 the OP-1&2 are binding to provide electricity within one month from the date of receipt of the application but in this case inspite of an occupier and after submission of the application form for getting electricity, the OP-1&2 intimated her after 14 months from the date of receipt of the application that they are not in a position to supply the same due to objection raised by the OP-3, which amounts do deficiency in service on the part of the OP-1&2. Though the OP-1&2 was requested to provide electric connection but ignoring such request the Ops did not take any fruitful action in this matter and for which the complainant has been suffering from harassment, mental agony and deprivation of electricity day by day. Finding no other alternative the complainant has approached before this ld. Forum by filing this complaint praying for direction upon the OP-1&2 to supply electricity to the complainant immediately, for making payment of Rs. 5,000/- for unnecessary harassment and litigation cost of Rs. 3,000=00.
The POC have been contested by the OP-1&2 by filing written version wherein it is stated that the complainant had applied for getting a new electric connection for her premises for domestic purpose in the prescribed form of WBSEDCL on 22.11.2012 and after receipt of the application and earnest money an enquiry was made and on scrutiny it was detected one service connection is there standing in the name of Batula Bibi in the self-same plot, where there is an outstanding due of Rs. 1,695/- against such connection. Not only that Mr. Manirul Hasan - Op-3 also raised an objection in writing on 15.12.2012 stating that the
3
applicant is not entitled to get any new connection in her name and accordingly these Ops have duly informed such information to the complainant that as one of the co-sharer of the said property – OP-3 has raised objection, the OP-1&2 are not in a position to provide electricity inspite of their willingness. For this reason the complainant was requested to file way leave permission before these Ops but the complainant did not produce the same rather she filed the certificate issued by Pradhan of Nityanandapur GP. For this reason the electric connection could not be effected. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on behalf of these Ops. It is further stated by the Ops that if the complainant files the way leave permission the electric connection will be given then and there without any delay but until and unless the same is not produced by the complainant electric connection cannot be given as the OP-3 is continuously raising objection in this respect. Moreover, the Ops have further mentioned that in view of the provision of Electricity Act, 2003 and rules framed thereunder wherein it is mentioned if there is any grievance for non-supply of electricity or any payment, the same should be ventilated before the Regulatory Commission or before the person or authority empowered by the said Act. So this ld. Forum has no jurisdiction to try the instant complaint. According to these Ops the POC is liable to dismissed with cost.
The POC has been contested by the Op-3 by filing written version wherein it is stated that this complaint is not maintainable before this ld. Forum because filing this complaint the complainant has filed one Title Suit being 84/2011 before the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, 4th Court, Burdwan against the defendants, namely, Batula Bibi, Manirul Hasan and Sk. Saifer Ali. As the said Title Suit is pending before the ld. Civil Court, this complaint cannot be maintainable. It is further state by the Op-3 that the said TS was instituted by the complainant but the instant complaint has been filed by the complainant without impleading the above-mentioned owners of the land except Manirul Hasan. The TS was dismissed for default on 01.8.2013 due to non-compliance of the court’s order. Thereafter one Misc. Case being no. 16/2013. So this complaint is barred by Res Judicata. As
4
the complainant after dismissal of her Title Suit promised to quit and vacate the premises belong to the defendants, but without doing so with mal-intention this complaint is filed by the complainant. As this complaint is bad due to non-joinder of necessary parties the same is liable to be dismissed.
All the parties have relied on some documents in support of their respective contentions. The OP-3 has field the certified copy of the order in respect of TS no. 84/201 passed by the ld. Civil Court. It is seen by us from the record and upon hearing from the parties admittedly the complainant has applied for getting electric service connection in her name at the premises wherein she has been residing since 1999, the said property is her father’s property and getting verbal assurance from her father she is residing there along with her husband, she got voter I-Card and another legal identity at the address of the said premises, the Pradhan, Nityanandapur GP has also recognized as an occupier in respect of the said premises, the complainant paid earnest money for Rs. 200/- and submitted the prescribed application form before the OP-1&2 for getting electric connection, an enquiry was made by the OP-1&2, resistance and objection was raised by OP-3 in effecting the electric connection in the name of the complainant, due to such objection the OP-1&2 could not effect the electric serviced connection in the name of the complainant, the said incident was duly intimated to the complainant by issuing letter, the complainant was requested by the OP-1&2 to provide way leave permission to effect the electric service connection, no way leave permission was given on behalf of the complainant to the OP-1&2, rather one certificate from the local GP Pradhan was supplied to the OP-1&2, there is an outstanding dues of Rs. 1695/- against one electric connection existed at the said premises.
During hearing ld. Counsel for the complainant has stated that the complainant is ready for making payment of the outstanding dues in respect of the said premises, if any, before getting electric connection in her name as per rules and regulations of WBSEDCL. The ld. Counsel for the WBSEDCL has argued that it has no objection for providing electric connection in the name of the
5
applicant if the applicant will submit the way leave permission for effecting such service connection. The ld. Counsel for the OP-3 has submitted that as the Title Suit is pending before the ld. Civil Court the applicant is not entitled to get electric connection at this juncture and as the said TS was instituted by the applicant prior to filing of this consumer complaint hence this complaint cannot be entertained by this Ld. Forum. The Ld. Counsel for the WBSEDCL has further argued that inspite of non-receipt of the electric service connection the complainant cannot approach before the ld. Forum. As per Electricity Act the complainant is under obligation to approach before the Regulatory Authority for redressal for her grievance. On that score the OP-1&2 have prayed for dismissal of this complaint.
Upon careful perusal of the record it is revealed to us that admittedly the complainant is an occupier of the said premises. Inspite of non-demarcation of her title in the premises in question, until and unless the TS is disposed of it is difficult to hold by us that the title is in respect of the premises is existing in her name. It is also true neither the complainant nor the OP-3 has thrown any light about the latest status of the TS which has been enlisted as Misc. Case. As this Consumer Forum has no idea about the right title of the complainant in the respective premises now we cannot declare that the complainant is the owner of the said premises, but as she is residing there for long years and she holds valid identity card i.e. Voter I-card, ration card at the address of the said premises, hence she can be termed as an occupier of the said premises. If she is an occupier hence in view of Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (which has been amended in the year 2008) wherein it is stated that every distribution licensee, shall, on an application by the owner or occupier of any premises, give supply of electricity to such premises, within one month after receipt of the application subject to some criteria. Therefore, in our view the complainant is entitled to get electric service connection in her name at the premises where she resides. But if the Ld. Civil Court will hold separate view in respect of the TS then the complainant shall abide by the order passed by the Ld. Civil Court in the TS being no. 84/2011. Being an occupier of the said premises as the complainant can get electricity hence the
6
OP-3 has no authority to raise any objection for effecting electric connection by the WBSEDCL authority. In case of any objection the WBSEDCL authority shall take police help from the police station and in this respect entire cost shall be borne by the complainant. The complainant has prayed for compensation from the OP-1 to the tune of Rs. 8000/- on the ground that after receipt of her application 14 months have elapsed, no intimation was given assigning any cause for non- effecting the electric service connection as per Electricity Act, 2003, wherein it is mentioned that the licensee is under obligation to give electric connection within one month from the date of receipt of the application. In this respect we are so say that upon receipt of the application the personnel of the WBSEDCL inspected the site and after inspection it was detected that there is an outstanding dues in the self-same premises in respect of electric connection and one co-sharer, namely, Manirul Hasan Sk. has raised objection to provide electric connection. We have noticed that the said information was duly intimate dot the complainant by issuing letter whereby the complainant was requested to submit way leave permission. But the complainant without filing any way leave permission has submitted one certificate from the Pradhan of local GP. As the complainant has failed to comply with the direction made by the OP-1&2 connection could not be given. Moreover, till filing of this complaint the complainant did not pay the outstanding dues in respect of the said premises which during argument she has agreed to pay. Therefore, the complainant shall pay the outstanding dues in respect of the said premises, if any, and OP-1&2 shall give separate electric connection in her name at the site where she is residing subject to other compliances, if any, by the complainant. After compliance within 15 days the OP-1&2 shall give the said electric connection in favour of the complainant. In case of any objection or problem the Op-1&2 are at liberty to seek police help from the police authority. As the complainant has failed to convince us as to why she is entitled to get the amount as prayed for we are unable to pass any award towards cost and compensation in her favour. The OP-3 shall not create any objection at the time of effecting of electric connection by the personnel of WBSEDCL.
7
Going by the foregoing discussion, hence, it is
O r d e r e d
that the complain is allowed in part on contest without any cost. The complainant is hereby directed to deposit the outstanding dues in respect of the said premises, if any, within 15 days from the date of passing of this order. The OP-1&2 is hereby directed to give separate electric connection in the name of the complainant in the premises where she is residing within 15 days subject to other compliances, if any, by the complainant. The OP-3 is hereby also directed not to create any objection at the time of effecting of electric connection by the personnel of WBSEDCL. In case of any objection or problem the Op-1&2 are at liberty to seek police help from the police authority and in this respect entire cost shall be borne by the complainant. With the abovementioned observation the complaint is thus disposed of accordingly.
Dictated and corrected by me.
(Silpi Majumder)
Member
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Durga Sankar Das) (Silpi Majumder)
Member Member
DCDRF, Burdwan DCDRF, Burdwan
