Order-17.
Date-12/08/2015.
In this complaint Complainant Ashok Kumar Roy by filing this complaint has submitted that complainant applied for Small Scale Industries (SSI) loan from Government of India and said authority verified all the necessary documents about complainant’s status and agreed to pay necessary finance assistance to the complainant and as per direction of the said SSI Scheme, Government of India, complainant took necessary permission from the Municipality and the United Bank of India (UBI) sanctioned the necessary loan amount for the said purpose.
But due to shortage of place for the said business, the complainant entered into tenancy agreement with op no.3 the premises mentioned in the cause title of this petition on payment of huge amount as advance and also agreed to pay rent for the said factory shed to the landlord op no.3.Further on completion of all the necessary formalities, complainant applied for electricity to the CESC Ltd., and the CESC Ltd. verified all the necessary documents and sanctioned to give electricity to the complainant for the said purpose and the complainant paid necessary security deposit money to the CESC Ltd. and the complainant’s Consumer number is 46257053078 and the meter No. is 2349171-01.
Subsequently landlord obstructed the said business place by closing the entrance of the business factory and also lock all the doors without the notice to the complainant and complainant is unable to run the said business for such obstruction made by the op no.3.Further it is submitted that the meter of the complainant is situated in the adjacent area of the said premises, landlord has not raised any objection for meter reading.But CESC Ltd. disconnected the electricity of the complainant in violation of the Electricity Act-2003 and also violation of natural justice.
Though there was no dues stands in the name of the complainant.So, the disconnection of electricity is totally illegal and not maintainable in law and for the illegal act of the op, complainant suffered huge monetary loss, mental pain, agony and social prestige and in the above circumstances, complainant has prayed for redressal by directing the op no.3 to open the said room and also the said electricity to restore the loan of the complainant and due to unfair trade practices on the part of the op no.3 and also for CESC Ltd., complainant has prayed for compensation.
On the other hand CESC Ltd. by filing written statement submitted that the supply of electricity was catered to complainant’s factory through two industrial meters bearing No. 2349171 and 3068119 and it is no doubt a commercial purpose which is evident from the documents produced by the complainant and from the complainant’s own Advocate’s letter dated 09.12.2011 it is found that the said factory is run and maintained by employing several workers and staff and complainant’s letter to UBI also reveals that complainant, staff and employees are not being able to entered into the factory due to resistance made by the landlord and further from the said complaint, it is clear that it is a dispute in between the complainant and this landlord because complainant’s main grievance against the landlord is to close the entire tenanted premises by lock and key.
Moreover CESC Ltd. asked the complainant to produce ‘No Objection Certificate’ NOC from West Bengal Pollution Control Board.But complainant failed to supply the said NOC from West Bengal Pollution Control Board for which after waiting prolonged period, the said meters were removed as the factory was closed for long period and in the above circumstances, the present complaint should be dismissed.
But anyhow op no.3 has not filed any written statement.So, the case is taken up for final disposal after hearing the Ld. Lawyers of both the parties.
Decision with reasons
On proper consideration of the complaint including the written version and further considering the documents as produced by the complainant, it is found that complainant is running one factory name Roy Engineering Works at BD/25/4, Deshbandhu Nagar, Sahapara, Kolkata – 700059.It is also proved that there was electric connection granted by CESC Ltd. in favour of Ashok Kumar Roy at BD/25/4, Deshbandhunagar, Sahapara, Kolkata – 59 having Consumer No. 46257053078.Further it is found from the document produced by the complainant that disconnection was made by CESC Ltd. by a letter dated 06.12.2001 for not complying statutory formalities and also for non-payment of outstanding dues and complainant was asked to submit NOC or consent certificate from West Bengal Pollution Control Board and complainant was intimated but same was/is not submitted, in that case, connection shall be disconnected.
From other documents as filed by the complainant, it is clear that landlord has closed the said tenanted portion by lock and key and factory is completely closed and there is a dispute between the landlord and complainant (admitted tenant) and complainant reported the matter to Bank and other concern about resistance made by the landlord to open the factory and truth is that the entire allegation is against landlord-op no.3 at the same time litigation is already started in between the complainant and landlord op no.3.But that is not our concern in view of the fact any dispute in between the landlord and complainant (tenant) can only be decided by the Civil Court, not by this Forum because landlord – tenant relationship does not come under the purview of the definition of Consumer and service provider.
Our only concern is whether CESC illegally disconnected the said consumer connection or not.But after considering the materials particularly the documents as produced by the complainant, it is found that complainant did not comply as per the direction of the CESC Ltd. by producing NOC from the West Bengal Pollution Control Board and at the same time the arrear bill has not been paid.So, the meter has been removed and disconnection had been made.But the present disconnection was made by the op in the year 2011.So, complainant ought to have filed this complaint before this Forum within two years from the date of disconnection, but this complaint was filed on 23.02.2015 that is long after date of disconnection and even after lapse of 2 years from the date of cause of action.
So, apparently the present complaint is barred by limitation and at the same time we have gathered that there is no deficiency and negligence for disconnecting the said disconnection on the ground since 2010 this factory is under lock and key and at the same time complainant failed to pay arrear dues and further no such document is produced by the complainant to show that he has already cleared the entire dues.
On the other hand it is found that UBI already started a proceedings under SARFEASI Act against Roy Engineering Works and the owner of the said business M/s. Ashok Kumar Roy and sympathetically decision has also been taken by banking authority through SARFEASI Act.So, in the above circumstances, we are convinced to hold that practically complainant has not been running this business for some dispute in between the land lord and himself (the tenant) and since 2010 this unit is not being run by the complainant and bank has already taken symbolical possession of this business by starting the said proceedings under SARFEASI Act.So, question of running of the factory is completely a false story and in fact the entire unit (factory) is under lock and key and no work is being done by the complainant and complainant has failed to pay outstanding dues and also failed to produce NOC from West Bengal Pollution Control Board and also failed to pay electricity for which electricity authority disconnected the said line and removed the meter and the ground for removal of meter and disconnection is justified and there is no deficiency in this regard on the part of the CESC Ltd. which is also not proved by the complainant.
Regarding this allegation against landlord – op no.3 as made by the complainant is not entertainable by the Forum because it is a Civil dispute and when the relationship in between the complainant and op no.3 is tenant and landlord, then tenant cannot be a consumer under the landlord for which the present complaint against op no.3 is not maintainable.Moreover this complaint is barred by limitation because same has been filed after lapse of 4 years from the date of disconnection when disconnection was made in the year 2011, and this complaint was filed on 13.02.2015 for which this complaint is barred under Section 24A of C.P. Act.
In the result, this complaint fails.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
That the complaint be and the same is dismissed against op nos. 1 & 2 on contest with penal cost of Rs. 10,000/- and same is dismissed exparte against landlord op no.3 without any cost.
Complainant is directed to pay the said penal cost to this Forum within one month from the date of this order, failing which penal interest at the rate of 9 percent p.a. shall be assessed over the same and if it is collected, it shall be deposited to this Forum’s Account.
