This is a complaint made by one Smt. Shibani Nath against the CESC Ltd. and one Sri Goutam Roy, praying for a direction upon the OP Nos. 1 to 3 to provide new electric connection and for payment of compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 20,000/-.
In short, case of the Complainant is that she is the rightful owner of the land measuring about 5 Cottahs 2 Chittacks 23 sq. ft. within R.S. dag no. 356/406, Khatian No. 356, 361, 362 and Hal 353 arising from 356, J.L. No. 20, Touzi Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 12, Scheme Plot No. 12 at Premises No. 597, Kalikapur, Purbalok Abasan Samity, P.O. Kalikapur, P.S. Jadavpur, Kolkata – 700 099 being Assessee No. 311090605979. The Complainant vide a Sale Deed no. 15712/1982 dated 06-12-1982 purchased the said premises from Smt. Kanan Bala Acharya and duly paid the consideration money to her and accordingly became owner of the suit premises. Subsequently, the Complainant mutated the property in her name with the Jadavpur Municipality as Holding No. 15/2667 and duly paid municipal taxes. The Complainant also got her name mutated with the Land Department vide Memo No. LR/2780 dated 19-03-1983. The Complainant applied for electric connection before the OP No. 1 on 24-07-2013 and paid requisite earnest money. In reply, OP No. 3 intimated that it would carry out due inspection on 29-07-2013. However, in view of some exigencies, Complainant urged the OP No. 1 to re-fix the date for carrying out due inspection. However, allegedly, CESC authorities did not make any inspection. On the contrary, to the utter surprise of the Complainant, she found that CESC authorities installed a new meter in the suit premises and on enquiry, she learnt that the same belonged to OP No. 4. It is stated that Premises number of the OP No. 4 is 1039, Kalikapur being Assessee No. 311090610872, which is altogether a different premises from that of the Complainant. But, still, the OP No. 1 deliberately did the mischief ignoring the requirement of the Complainant. So, the Complainant made a representation before the OP No. 3 appraising it of the entire fact and requested it to provide an electric meter connection and further prayed for disconnection of the meter stood in the name of the OP No. 4. Hence, this case.
OP Nos. 1 to 3, by filing a WV, contested the case and denied all the material allegations as made out in the complaint. It is stated that on 24-06-2013, Complainant applied for 3 KW domestic load at Premises No. 37 (597) Purbaloke, Mukundapur, Kolkata – 700 099. After receiving the said application, OPs sent their men and agents to carry out due inspection. But, they could not carry out due inspection as the gate was found under lock and key and also due to strong objection raised by some security personnel deployed by the OP No. 4. Thereafter, these OPs again deputed their men and agents on 06-09-2013 for inspection of the said premises, but could not do so due to strong objection raised by the men and agents of OP No. 4. Another attempt was made in this regard on 30-11-2013, when District Engineer (Southern District) along with Dept. Manager (Legal) visited the spot. However, this time also none from the side of the Complainant was present at site despite having prior intimation over phone (no. 9874357085). It is further stated by these OPs that on scrutiny of the record of these OPs it revealed that the aforesaid overhead service was installed on 09-10-2013 in favour of the OP No. 4. These OPs came to know that OP No. 4 is the landlord of the said premises in question and the Complainant is not the owner or occupier of the said plot of land. Accordingly, these OPs prayed for dismissal of this case.
OP No. 4 contested the case by filing WV, whereby he has denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It is stated that he purchased the plot of land from its original owner, namely, Smt. Mitali Pramanik by virtue of a registered Deed of Conveyance executed on 19-09-2003. After purchasing the said property, the OP No. 4 mutated his name in the record of KMC bearing Assessee No. 311090610872 and has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property by paying rates and taxes regularly as its sole and absolute owner. After purchasing the said property, he applied for electric connection and accordingly, due inspection was carried out by the CESC authority on 21-09-2013 and on being satisfied with the papers and documents of the OP No. 4, the CESC authority raised an offer letter dated 24-09-2013, followed by MASD bill of even date for a sum of Rs. 11,250.00. Subsequently, after receiving requisite money from this OP, the CESC authorities installed the electric meter stands in his name. Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of this case.
Point for determination is whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief(s) prayed for by her.
Decision with reasons
In order to establish her ownership status in respect of the Premises in question, Complainant has furnished photocopies of some documents, viz., municipal tax receipts, registered Title Deed, NoC issued by the Assessment Collection Department, KMC, Mutation Certificate etc. To our mind, insofar as these documents have not been termed null and void by any competent Court of Law, it cannot be stated prima facie that Complainant is not in legal possession of the premises in question. Against this backdrop, we find it indeed baffling on what basis the OP Nos. 1 to 3 jumped to the conclusion that the Complainant is not the owner of the plot in question where she applied for getting service connection.
Above all, OP No. 4 has claimed himself to be the absolute owner of Premises No. 1039, Kalikapur, P.S. Purba Jadavpur, Kolkata – 700 099; whereas, Complainant has sought for service connection at Premises No. 597, Kalikapur, Purbalok Abasan Samity, P.O. Kalikapur, P.S. Purba Jadavpur, Kolkata – 700 099 contending inter alia that she is the absolute owner of this particular premises. Despite such palpable difference in respect of Premises Nos., the predicament on the part of the OP Nos. 1 to 3 is indeed surprising. By such parity of reasoning, we find no rational on the part of the OP No. 4 to resist OP Electricity Board from effecting service connection to the afore-mentioned Premises of the Complainant.
Accordingly, we are of opinion that Complainant is fully justified to have electric service connection at the premises in question, i.e., Premises No. 597, Kalikapur, Purbalok Abasan Samity, P.O. Kalikapur, P.S. Purba Jadavpur, Kolkata – 700 099 and OP Nos. 1 to 3 are duty-bound in terms of the Electricity Act to provide service connection to the Complainant.
Now, let us discuss whether the Complainant is entitled to any compensation or not. It is not in dispute that the OP Nos. 1 to 3 did attempt to effect service connection to the premises of the Complainant. However, as it appears, for one reason or the other, they could not accomplish their job. In this regard, it is also worth noting that OP No. 4 too put a stumbling block to the men and agents of CESC authority from effecting service connection to the premises of the Complainant. Accordingly, it cannot be said that OP Nos. 1 to 3 remained a mute spectator to the application made by the Complainant for getting service connection at the premises in question. Accordingly, we see no reason to burden these OPs with any financial liabilities.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
that CC/85/2015 be and the same is allowed on contest in part against the OPs. OP Nos. 1 to 3 are directed to provide service connection to the premises of the Complainant with prior intimation in writing within 40 days hence. OP No. 4 is directed not to create any resistance to the men and agents of OP Nos. 1 to 3 when they visit the suit premises for the purpose of effecting service connection, else legal consequences will follow. OP Nos. 1 to 3 are also directed to remove the electric meter stands in the name of the OP No. 4 within the aforementioned period in case it is indeed installed in the suit premises of the Complainant.
