Presented by:
Minakshi Chakraborty, Presiding Member
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE :
This instant case has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. As per submission of the complainant, he is a monthly tenant under the OP nos.2 & 3 in respect of a shop room on the ground floor of the HMC holding No.203/5, Netaji Subhas Road, P.S.-Howrah, District-Howrah-711101 where he runs a Bhujia shop. It is pertinent to mention here that originally Soman Lal Shaw, the grandfather of the present complainant was tenant in respect of the said shop room under the original land lord Balai Chandra Ghosh. The said Soman Lal Shaw also used to run a Bhujia shop in the said tenanted shop room.
After the death of Soman Lal Shaw his only son Kedar Nath Shaw became the Tenant of the shop room under the said landlord and was paying monthly rent to the landlord.
In the year 1999 legal heirs of Balai Chandra Ghosh i.e. his wife, sons and daughters filed a Title Suit before the Ld. 7th Civil Judge (Jr. Divn) at Howrah being Title Suit No.107 of 1999 against the said Kedar Nath Shaw for his eviction and for recovery of Khas possession of the tenanted shop room and said suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs/landlord. The said plaintiffs/ Decree Holders also filed an Execution Case before the Ld. 7th Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) at Howrah being Title Execution No.9 of 2007 against the Judgment debtor which was dismissed for default on 31/03/2016.
On refusal to accept the rent by the then landlords said Kedar Nath Shaw started paying rent before Ld. Rent Controller at Howrah which is still continuing.
Said Kedar Nath Shaw died on 19/02/2014 and after his death his five sons viz. Rajesh Kumar Shaw, Raj Kumar Shaw, Bijay Kumar Shaw, Sitesh Kumar Shaw and Rakesh Kumar Shaw became joint tenants of the said shop room and five sons of deceased Kedar Nath Shaw filed a petition under Section 21 of the W.B.P.T. Act before the Ld. Rent Controller at Howrah praying for deposition of rent and Ld. Rent Controller permitted them to deposit the monthly rent and accordingly they are depositing rent month by month before the Ld. Rent Controller.
One of the son’s of Kedar Nath Shaw, namely Rajesh Kumar Shaw with the consent of his four other brothers is running their family business i.e. the said Bhujia Business in the said tenanted premises under the name and style of Kedar Nath Bhujia Shop which is ekes out his livelihood and also to maintain his family the complainant runs the said Bhujia Business. License was also obtained by the complainant to run the instant business from HMC.
The complainant applied before the O.p. no.1 for a separate Commercial Meter supply at his shop room within the said premises for which inspection was also carried out by the men of the O.p. no.1 thereafter on 30/08/2017 the O.p. no.1 sent a letter to the complainant where they regret their inability to accede to install a separate service in the said premises as there is service already exists.
That on several occasions the complainant approached the O.p. no.1 to install the meter in the complainant’s business place at the said premises O.p. no.1 has denied the same.
Ultimately having no other alternative the complainant filed the instant case with a prayer to direct the O.p. no.1 to install Commercial Electric Meter at the said premises in question, a prayer to direct the O.p. nos.2 & 3 not to raise objection at the time of giving connection and installation of Meter and also a direction upon the Police Commissioner, Howrah City Police for rendering Police Assistance at the time of giving connection by the O.p. no.1 at the complainant premises. The complainant shall bear the cost of such Police Assistance and litigation cost.
DEFENCE CASE:
In spite of receiving notice the O.p. nos.2 to 3 did not appeared for which the case was running ex parte against them.
The O.p. no.1 entered appearance by filing written version denying inter alia the material allegations. According to the O.p. no.1 the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning and scope of the C.P. Act and the complaint case is not maintainable before this Forum/Commission because the complainant applied for Commercial Meter and it is absolutely cooked up story that the shop room is his only means of livelihood as contented by him. So, there is no cause of action against them for filing the instant petition for which the complaint case is not maintainable.
Evidence on record
The complainant filed evidence on affidavit and written notes of argument which are nothing but replica of complaint petition and supports the averments of the complainant in the complaint petition. O.p. no.1 also filed evidence on affidavit and B.N.A.
Questionnaire have also been filed by the OP1 and reply against such questionnaire by the complainant have also been filed
Argument highlighted by the Ld. Lawyers of the complainant and O.p. no.1
Complainant has filed separate written notes of argument. As per BNA., evidence on affidavit and written notes of argument shall have to be taken into consideration for disposal of the case.
Heard argument of the complainant and O.p. no.1 at length. In course of argument, Ld. Lawyers for the complainant and O.p. no.1 have given emphasis on evidence and documents produced by them.
From the discussion hereinabove, we find the following issues/points for consideration.
Issues/points for consideration
- Whether the complainant is the consumer?
- Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the case?
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Issue no.1:
In the light of the discussion hereinabove and from the materials on record, it transpires that the complainant is a Consumer as provided by the spirit of Section 2 (d) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. The point is thus answered in the affirmative.
Issue no.2:
As all the parties have their address within the district of Howrah and the claims do not exceed the pecuniary limit of this commission, so as per provision of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, this commission has territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint case. This point thus disposed of accordingly.
ISSUE 3& 4
Both the issues are taken into consideration for the sake of convenience.
The present complainant is a monthly tenant under the OP nos.2 & 3 in respect of a shop room on the ground floor of the HMC holding No.203/5, Netaji Subhas Road, P.S.-Howrah, District-Howrah-711101 where he runs a Bhujia shop. As per submission of the complainant, he with the consent of his four other brothers is running their family business i.e. the said Bhujia Business in the said tenanted premises under the name and style of Kedar Nath Bhujia Shop which is ekes out his livelihood and also to maintain his family the complainant runs the said Bhujia Business. License was also obtained by the complainant to run the instant business from HMC.
The complainant applied before the O.p. no.1 for a separate Commercial Meter supply at his shop room within the said premises for which inspection was also carried out by the men of the O.p. no.1 thereafter on 30/08/2017 the O.p. no.1 sent a letter to the complainant where they regret their inability to accede to install separate electric meter. on several occasions the complainant approached the O.p. no.1 to install the meter in the complainant’s business place at the said premises O.p. no.1 has denied the same. In support of his case the complainant has submitted the photocopies of Title Execution petition, copy of rent control challan, copy of license issued by HMC, copy of electric bill of premises no. ………….. issued by CESC and copies of correspondence by and between the complainant and CESC.
OP1 also filed written version where OP1 categirically denied that complainant is not entitled to get new commercial electric meter for the premises as there is already a commercial meter existed in the said premises.
In the interrogatories filed by the OP1, they have categorically asked the complainant in question no. 14. “did your……………….”, the answer was NO. the answer of question no. 17 put by the OP1 regarding holding local inspection was also in negative. Again in question 18 of the interrogatories OP1 asked the complainant as to whether he has filed any document to show that the holding number in question consists of one shop room where the complainant answered that question in negative.
Form the discussion made herein above and after scrutinizing the documents submitted by the parties, question comes to the mind of the commission that if there is no connection in the shop room then how the business is going on in the said shop room and if the commercial connection belongs to a different holding then what restrained the complainant to hold local inspection at the said premises? From the written version submitted by OP1, it has come to knowledge of this commission that the complainant has already getting supply of electricity in the said premises and as per submission of OP1, the complainant intends to split the load to obtain benefit of lower charges. Over this issue complainant failed to substantiate that fact is something different by way of producing any documents or by holding any local inspection. So, question of deficiency in service does not arise.
In view of the facts and circumstances stated herein above, this commission is of considered opinion that there is deficiency on the part of the OPs and the complainant should be allowed to get the reliefs as prayed for.
Both the issues are thus disposed of.
O R D E R E D
That the Complaint case no 323 of 2017 be and the same is dismissed on contest. No order is passed as to cost.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/ sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.
The Final Order will be available in the following website The word file is drafted and corrected by me.
(Minakshi Chakraborty)
Member
D.C.D.R.C., Howrah
