THE PRESIDENT

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

CASE No.  CC-  07 of 2020

 

 

Smt. Mina Debnath(Das),

W/O- Sri Supriya Debnath,

D/O- Lt. Arabida Bhushan Das,

Resident of Gurkhabasti,

P.O. Kunjaban, Khatalbagan,

P.S. New Capital Complex,

District- West Tripura,

Pin- 799006. ….................Complainant.

 

 

-VERSUS-

 

 

1. The Tripura State Electrical Corporation Ltd.,

Bidyut Bhawan, Bhuturia,

Banamalipur, Agartala,

District- West Tripura,

P.S. East Agartala, P.O. Agartala,

Pin-799001,  

Represented by its 

Chief Managing Director.

 

2. Senior Manager,

Capital Complex Electrical Sub-Division,

Agartala, District- West Tripura, 

P.O. Kunjaban,

Pin- 799006, P.S. NCC. ..................Opposite Party.

 

 

 

     __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI RUHIDAS PAL

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

 

Dr (SMT) BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

C O U N S E L

 

For the Complainant : Sri Pulak Saha,

  Learned Advocate.   

  

For the O.P.  : Sri Nepal Majumder,

  Learned Advocate.

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON :  31.03.2021

J U D G M E N T

The Complainant's case in short is that the  complainant is a destitute lady who has been neglected by her husband but she has a permanent address. On the basis of her prayer the Opposite parties(in short O.Ps) extended electric connection in her premisses who has a hotel business situated at Gorkhabasti. She had paid Rs.6000/- to the O.P. as charges for installation of electric connection. Thereafter suddenly the connection has been disconnected without any prior notice to the complainant for which she has been seriously caused damage to her of the  hotel business. The hotel business is her only source of livelihood. There was dispute between her husband and her in respect of the bank loan taken by her husband after mortgaging her homestead. In this regard complainant filed a Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Tripura and the Writ Petition was numbered as WP(C) no-  695/2019  and it was finally disposed of by order dated 04.09.2019 by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court. The complainant was allowed to occupy the property and continue to do business in the manner so desired without any hindrance subject to condition that complainant has to repay the loan amount in 11(eleven) installments. Accordingly the complainant for her livelihood started the hotel business but the O.P. disconnected the electric line without giving   her any prior notice. And for that reason she filed this complaint seeking redress to this Commission.

 

2. On the other hand O.P. also appeared and contested the suit by way of filing written reply. In the written objection O.P. stated that the complaint is not maintainable in law. The complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. The O.P. stated that as per prayer of the complainant the electric service connection was given on 23.09.2019 in the premises as mentioned in the declaration of affidavit dated 17.09.2019. The installation charges were also deposited. In the affidavit the complainant made a provision that the electric connection may be disconnected in future if TSECL desired the same. The husband of the petitioner namely Supriya Debnath in writing contacted with the O.P. No.2 and claimed the owner ship of the land supported by documents and prayed for disconnection of the electric line and as a result the electric connection was disconnected as claimant failed to submit no objection paper from the land owner. It is also stated that there was no fault and as well as deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. 

It is further stated that the complainant also failed to submit any trade license for doing her business which is required under municipal law. Ultimately, the O.P. stated that complaint is not tenable in law and it is liable to be dismissed.

 

3. EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE PARTIES:-

Complainant submitted examination in chief on affidavit and 6 nos. of documents are also filed which are marked as Exhibit- 1 Series. She is also cross examined. 

 

On the other hand, O.P. submitted examination in chief on affidavit and 8 nos. of documents. The documents are marked as Exhibit- A Series. The O.P. is also cross examined. 

 

 

4. POINTS TO BE DETERMINED: - 

  (i) Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the O.P. towards the Complainant?

  (ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation/  relief as prayed for?

 

5. ARGUMENTS: - 

At the time of argument Learned Advocate for the complainant was found absent. We heard Learned Counsel Mr. Nepal Majumder for the O.Ps. Mr. Majudmer submitted that the complainant is not entitled to get electricity connection as per Electricity Rules. Since this Commission passed an interim order for providing connection, the O.P. gave her electric connection in compliance of the interim order dated 04.09.2020. Mr. Majumder also submitted that there was no direction by the Hon'ble High Court for giving any electrical connection to the premisses in question. So, there was no fault or deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. After  giving connection when her husband in writing gave objection claiming the owner ship of the land, then the O.P. had no alternative but to disconnect the connection and O.Ps are bound to follow the rules and regulations made under Electricity Act. Mr. Majumder further submitted that there is no dispute about the ownership of the suit premise and complainant also did not deny about the non submission of the NOC. So, there is no merit in the complainant's case and she is not entitled to get any compensation and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.   

 

6. DECISION AND REASONS THEREOF:-

We have perused the pleadings of both parties as well as evidences adduced by them. All the points are taken up together for decision. On perusal of the examination in chief submitted by the complainant on affidavit we find that she has reiterated the facts  which are narrated in her complaint. In cross examination she stated that electricity connection was reinstalled as per interim order passed by this Commission(Forum). At present she has no grievance  against the O.P. as the business premisses belongs to her husband Surpiya Debnath and he is the owner. She did not obtain NOC from her husband for installation of electric connection. She did not make party to her husband in this case as O.P. and her shop premises was divided into 2 part by making a partition. Her own brother namely Sujit Das is dealing with business in another part of the premises. She admitted that her husband filed civil suit claiming right title interest over the shop premises making party to her brother and the complainant herself and her husband succeeded the case. Hon'ble High did not give any direction to the O.P. for giving electricity connection to her shop premises. She admitted that she did not submit any trade license in respect of her business. She also did not submit any paper in respect of her hotel business. Earlier she was not doing any business before getting the order from the High Court. She further admitted that the O.P. may disconnect the same in future if they desire the same. 

These evidences are found from the cross examination of the complainant. 

 

On the other hand O.P.W. namely Aish Kumar Sarkar also reiterated the same version which are mentioned in the written reply. On perusal of the evidence of the O.P.W. We find that on 23.09.2019, the O.P. disconnected the electric connection as the husband of the complainant in writing made an objection claiming ownership of the land with supporting documents. In cross examination he stated that they disconnected the same on the basis of the objection raised by the  husband of the complainant and they also informed the matter verbally to the complainant.

 

7. On over all appreciation of the evidences of both sides as well as the admitted fact, we find that the complainant is actually not entitled to get any electric connection as the premises in question is belonged to her husband and no NOC was submitted in this regard. We also find that the Hon'ble High Court also did not give any direction in this regard to the O.P. for providing electric connection. However, this Commission(Forum) passed an interim order dated 04.09.2020 as an application filed by the complainant U/S 13(3) B of the C.P. Act 1986 for providing Electric Connection and accordingly the O.P. complied the order of the Commission.

 

We find that the complainant in her cross examination stated that at present she has no grievance against the O.P. It means that the complainant got her relief. Now the question is whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. Obviously the answer will be in the negative as we have already discussed that the complainant had no right to get the electricity connection in the premisses which is belonged to her husband without obtaining any NOC. So, we are in the opinion that the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation as there is no deficiency of service on the part of the O.P. Accordingly, the complaint is disposed of. No costs.             

Supply copy of the order to both the parties free of cost.                

 

Announced.

 

 

SRI R. PAL

PRESIDENT, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

 

Dr (SMT) B. PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.