DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

CASE   NO:   CC- 54 of 2018

 

Sri Haripada Das,

S/O. Late Sachindra Kumar Das,

Vill. & P.O.- Rabindranagar,

Sepahijala District, Tripura  .…..............….......................Complainant.

 

        -VERSUS-

 

1. The Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd.

Represented by its Chairman-Cum-Managing Director,

Bidyut Bhavan, Mara Chowmuhani,

Agartala, West Tripura.

 

2. The Additional General Manager,

Electric Circle Bishramganj,

Sepahijala Tripura.

 

3. The Deputy General Manager,

Electrical Division Sonamura,

Rabindranagar, Sepahijala District, Tripura.

 

4. The Senior Manager,

Sonamura Electrical Sub-Division,

Sonamura, Sepahijala Tripura..................................... Opposite parties.

 

      __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI BAMDEB MAJUMDER

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SRI U. DAS

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

C O U N S E L

 

For the Complainant : Sri Koushik Roy,

  Sri Sumana Debbarma,

  Sri Udai Sankar Singha,

  Smt. Riya Majumder,

  Advocates.  

 

For the O.Ps. : Sri Bikram Paul,

  Smt. Sujata Deb(Gupta),

  Advocates.  

                                                                                                                

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON: 25/03/2019

 

J U D G M E N T

 

The Complainant Sri Haripada Das,  set the law in motion by presenting the petition U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 complaining deficiency in service committed by the O.Ps. 

 

2. The Complainant's case, in brief, is that the Complainant is the owner and possessor of land in Daag No. 3010 under Khatian No. 2573 which is situated at Sepahijala, Sonamura Sub-Division. The complainant alleged that on 29.10.2014 he had submitted a letter to the O.P. No.3, the Deputy General Manager, Electric Division, Sonamura, Rabindranagar, District- Sepahijala praying for shifting of electric poles by dint of which HT electric line over his Jote land was drawn up without his consent. He further alleged that due to the said HT electric line he was not in a position to construct a permanent shop in his jote land for earning his livelihood. Though the said letter was received by the O.P. No.3 but he did not receive any response from the O.P. He had approached different authorities of TSECL under the RTI Act but he did not get any reply from them. He ultimately moved to the Hon'ble State Chief Information Commissioner. Hon'ble State Chief Information Commissioner passed an order on 31.08.2017 directing the O.P. No.3 for disposing the RTI application which was filed by the complainant. The complainant further alleged that the O.P. No.2 the Additional General Manager, Electric Circle, Bishramganj, Sepahijala issued a letter to the complainant vide no- T.14/ED-SNM/RBN/2017-18/2005-07 dated 05.09.17 whereby he had been asked to remain present on 07.09.2017 at 4.00 P.M. for site verification for the purpose of examining the feasibility of shifting of electric poles and the electric line. Thereafter the O.P. No.2  without any cogent reason all of a sudden issued another letter to the complainant vide No.F.T.12(1)/ED-SNM/RBN/17-18/2431-32 dated 20/09/17 asking the complainant to deposit Rs.69,132/- only in favour of the Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd. (TSECL) in the shape of demand draft /cheque payable at SBI, Sonamura under the Head '' Shifting of HT/LT Line near the house of Sri Haripaada Das S/O- Late Sachindra Kumar Das, Vill &  P.O. Rabindranagar, Sipahijala, Tripura under the Jurisdiction of  ESD- Sonamura''. The complainant urged that the Opposite parties without any basis of law had demanded the amount from him. 

 

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the conduct of the O.Ps the complainant has approached this Forum claiming Rs.10 lac for unauthorized installation of HT electric line over his jote land, Rs.5 lac for pain and agony and sufferings and Rs.50,000/- for cost of litigation in total Rs.15,50,000/- from the O.Ps. Apart from this, the complainant has also prayed for setting aside, cancel, quash the impugned order dt 20.09.2017 vide No.F.T.12(1)/ED-SNM/RBN/17-18/2431-32 . Hence, this case.  

 

4. The O.Ps have contested the complaint by filing written Statement refuting the allegations of the Complainant. The O.Ps have challenged the maintainability of the complaint. The O.Ps have stated that after receiving the application from the complainant the concerned Manager in Charge had visited the site and submitted report to the O.P. No.3 and also verbally informed the complainant to deposit the necessary cost for shifting of the electric poles and the electric line. It is also stated in the written statement that the O.P. No.4 had tried several times for shifting the electric line but due to the objection raised by the neighbours of the complainant he could not succeed in shifting the electric line. It is further stated in the written statement that the HT line has been drawn up over the jote land of the complainant with the consent of the complainant and his predecessors for their benefit and others. According to the O.Ps, the O.P. No.2 had issued the letter dt. 20.09.2017 vide No.F.T.12(1)/ED-SNM/RBN/17-18/2431-32 asking the complainant to deposit Rs.69,132/- in compliance with the provisions laid down under TERC- Electricity Supply Code Regulation- 2011 vide Regulation Nos. 4.79, 4.80 and 4.81. The O.Ps have denied committing any deficiency of service on their part towards the complainant. The O.Ps have thus prayed for dismissal of the complaint.      

 

EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE PARTIES:

5. In support of the complaint the complainant has examined himself as P.W.1. He also adduced evidences of two more witnesses who are his neighbours.

The complainant has adduced 10 documents in support of his complaint which had been marked Exhibit- 1 Series.  

The O.P. side on the other hand did not adduce oral evidence but they have filed 6 documents on 29.10.18 when they had filed written objection. 

 

POINTS TO BE DETERMINED:

 

6. Based on the contentions raised by both the parties the following issues are made for determination:

(i) Whether the complaint filed by the complainant is maintainable?

(i) Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps towards the complainant?

(iii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief/compensation?

 

ARGUMENT

 

7. We have heard the arguments of Learned counsel of both sides and perused the complaint petition, written objection, evidence on record and the documents. On behalf of the complainant written arguments was also filed. Learned Counsel for the complainant in support of his argument has referred to two decisions, one of  which was rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case no. WP(C) -193 of 2016 decided on 13.12.18 another one was  rendered by the Hon'ble High court of Tripura in case No. WP(C) -433 of 2011 decided on 18.06.2015.  

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION: 

 

8. It is admitted and established fact that the O.Ps had drawn up HT electric line over the jote land of the complainant and that there was electric poles by dint of which HT line is drawn up on the jote land of the complainant. It is also not in dispute that the complainant had prayed to the O.Ps for shifting of the electric poles and HT line from his jote land in order to enable the complainant to construct permanent shop in his jote land for earning his livelihood. Learned Counsel appearing for the O.Ps while arguing the case has contended that the complaint  is not maintainable as the complaint does not come under the purview of  section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act and that the complainant is not a consumer of the O.Ps. It is also contended by learned counsel for the O.Ps that there is no deficiency of service  committed by the O.Ps towards the complainant as the O.P. No.2 has lawfully issued the letter vide no. F.T.12(1)/ED-SNM/RBN/17-18/2431-32 dated 20.09.17 asking the complainant to deposit Rs.69,132/- in compliance with the provisions laid down under TERC- Electricity Supply Code Regulations- 2011 for shifting the electric poles and the electric line from the jote land of the complainant.

 

9. Learned Counsel appearing for the complainant per contra argued that the complaint filed by the complainant against the O.Ps is maintainable as the complainant is a consumer and that the O.Ps are under legal obligation to arrange for shifting of the electric poles and the electric line from the jote land of the complainant without any charge. According to the learned counsel for the complainant the erection of electric poles and drawing up of High Tension(HT) electric line with the help of those electric poles by the O.Ps over the jote land of the complainant has come under the purview of definition of the term ''Deficiency'' under the Consumer Protection Act. Learned counsel further argued that the complainant has successfully established his case U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act and that the complainant is entitled to get compensation of Rs.15,50,000/- and also a direction from this Forum for setting aside, cancel, quash the impugned order dt. 20.09.2017 vide No.F.T.12(1)/ED-SNM/RBN/17-18/2431-32 issued by the O.P. No.2. 

 

10. We have considered the submissions of both sides. We find that the complainant did not adduce any documentary evidence to convince us that he and his predecessors ever filed any protest letter to the TSECL regarding erection of the electric poles and drawing up of High Tension(HT) electric line over his jote land at the time drawing up of the electric line. The complainant also did not mention in his complaint since how many years the HT electric line and the electric poles were in existence over the jote land of the complainant. There is no cogent evidence on record to prove that the complainant is a consumer under the TSECL in relation to the HT electric line which has been drawn up  over his jote land. We also find that the O.P. No.2 has lawfully issued the letter dated 20.09.2017 vide No.F.T.12(1)/ED-SNM/RBN/17-18/2431-32 asking the complainant to deposit Rs.69,132/- for the purpose of shifting of the electric poles and the electric line from his jote land in compliance with the TERC- Electricity Supply Code Regulations- 2011. We have perused the copy of the Electric Supply code Regulation- 2011 published in Tripura Gazette in the month of March 13, 2012 which has been filed by the O.Ps along with their written objection. We find that the letter issued by the O.P. No.2 dt. 20.09.17 F.T.12(1)/ED-SNM/RBN/17-18/2431-32 is in consonance with the electricity supply code Regulation- 2011. 

 

11. We have also gone through the citations referred to by Learned counsel for the complainant. We find that the factual matrix in the referred cases do not have nexus with the case in hand. The two case laws referred to by learned Counsel for the complainant do not according to us govern the case in hand. 

 

12. We find force in the arguments placed by the learned counsel for the O.Ps as to the non-maintainability of the complaint. We are satisfied that the complainant does not come under the purview of section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. It further appears to us that there is no relationship of consumer and service  provider between the complainant & the O.Ps. So, according to us the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act. We also do not find any sort of negligence and deficiency of service having been committed by the Opposite parties to the complainant. 

 

13. In view of the discussions made above and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case we find and hold that the complainant has failed to establish a case U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The Complainant according to us is not entitled to get any compensation/relief. We accordingly dismiss the complaint. There is no order as to costs.

 

  The complainant is however, at liberty to avail such remedy other than a consumer complaint as may be available to him in law for the redressal of his grievances.

        

       ANNOUNCED

 

 

 SRI BAMDEB MAJUMDER

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

 

 

 

 SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,

 MEMBER, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA

 

SRI U. DAS

MEMBER,

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

 WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.