DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: BHADRAK : (ODISHA).
Consumer Complaint No. 48 of 2022.
Date of hearing : 29.05.2023.
Date of order : 05.06.2023.
Dated the 5th day of June 2023.
“KIDS WORLD” a Proprietorship Firm
Situated at Nayabazar (Near Candhipadia),
Represented by sole Proprietor
Manasi Nandi, W/o:- Niranjan Nandi,
At/Po/PS:-Purunabazar, Dist:-Bhadrak. ………….. Complainant.
-:Versus:-
1. The Executive Engineer, Electrical,
B.N.E.D. Bhadrak Electrical Division (N),
Bhadrak TPNODL, At:- Power House,
By-pass, Dist:- Bhadrak-756100.
2. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Electrical,
TPNODL, At:- Power House, By-pass,
Dist:- Bhadrak-756100.
3. The J.E. Electrical, TPNODL,
At:- Power House, By-pass,
Dist:- Bhadrak-756100.
4. BauliCharanBarik, S/o:- Late BanamaliBarik,
Vill:- Kanpur, P.S:- Tihidi, Dist:- Bhadrak.
.…………Opposite parties.
P R E S E N T S
1. Sri Shiba Prasad Mohanty, President,
2. Smt. Madhusmita Swain, Member.
Counsels appeared for the parties.
Counsel for Complainant : Sri S.K. Nayak, Advocate & Associate.
Counsel for O.P.No.1 to 3 : Gayatri Pradhan, Deputy Manager (Legal),
Counsel for O.P. No. 4 : Sk. Md. Akhtar Ali, Advocate& Associate.
J U D G M E N T.
SRI SHIBA PRASAD MOHANTY, PRESIDENT.
In the matter of an application filed by the complainant alleging deficiency of service against the Opposite Parties under Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Fact of the case of is that, the complainant being an educated lady opted to earn her livelihood & maintain her family through self-employment. The O.P. No.4 has taken a shop room on rent from one Prakash Chandra Das, the land which is situated at Nayabazar near Gandhipadia, Bhadrak. As the O.P. was not financially sound he requested the husband of the complainant to join with him as a partner to start a business by investing money & the O.P. No.4 told that he can only provide the shop room to which the complainant’s husband agreed & was paying Rs.8,000/- per month to O.P. No.4 as he had spent some amount in finishing work of the shop room. The complainant is the sole proprietor of “KIDS WORLD” which deals with sale of Samsung, APPO, VIVO, Realme, I. Phone, Zplus mobiles. As per the consent of O.P.No.4 & the house owner Prakash Chandra Das. Complainant spent about 7 lakhs in remodeling the show room & now the mobile of different companies worth about Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees twenty five lakhs) are in ready stock & has been continuing her business in the said shop room since 16 years. In the meantime the land owner Prakash Chandra Das died & after him his wife also died leaving behind them one daughter & one son who are remaining outside & they are also well aware regarding the business firm named & styled as “KIDS WORLD” of the complainant which is running in the rented house given by them to O.P.No.4 & regarding the payment of electricity dues regularly being paid by the complainant to O.P. No.1,2& 3. The house rent agreement & partnership agreement is with O.P. No.1 which he has kept with him as the complainant reposed confidence upon him. The complainant has been regularly paying electricity dues to O.P. No.1 to 3 in the name of O.P. No.4 which are with her. She used to pay electricity bills by pay phone, A/c transfer, NEFT etc. Recently on 01.06.2022 she has also paid an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards electricity bill to O.P. No.1 to 3 from her account to the account of the accused persons in the name of O.P. No.4. From the year 2002 the elder brother of the complainant’s husband, thereafter the complainant’s husband & after him, the complainant is running the shop by investing huge amount having huge stock. As the bills are being regularly paid by the complainant. Complainant is a beneficiary under the O.P. No.1 to 3 through O.P. No.4 which is within the knowledge of all the O.Ps. Without any just & reasonable cause O.P. No.4 with an ulterior motive & for illegal gain is in a mood to disturb in the peaceful possession &running of business of the complainant which is named & styled as “KIDS WORLD”. O.P. No.4 has given threat to this complainant on 05.06.2022 to disconnect the electricity connection to her shop though she is paying the electricity dues regularly. Complainant being a lady is being harassed in the hands of O.P. No.4 and she is in mental agony. O.P. No.4 is keeping the house rent & partner shop agreements with him & betraying the confidence reposed upon him by the complainant, always giving threat to the complainant to disconnect power supply to her shop room and in that regard is going to the office of O.P. No.1 to 3 several times. If the O.P. No.1 to 3 will disconnect power supply to the complainant’s mobile showroom then the complainant will suffer a lot as she has invested huge amount. The mental agony & harassment meter out to the complainant is assessed to a tune of Rs.2,00,000/- which the O.P. No.4 is to compensate. O.P. No.4 is playing hide & seek with the complainant & not giving the documents such as agreements to the complainant which are with him. Complainant prayed to admit the case & direct the O.P. No.4 to handover the agreement papers to the complainant and to pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-to her towards mental agony & harassment and not take any step for disconnection of power supply to the complainant’s firm “KIDS WORLD” till disposal of the case.
O.P. No.4 states that, the petition is not maintainable & petitioner has no cause of action to file in the court. The petitioner is not a consumer of the O.Ps and that all the allegations made in the petition are all false and that the complainant & her husband have unauthorizedly trespassed to the premises. Husband of complainant was a good friend of O.P. No.4. As O.P. remains busy in his work he paid the money to the husband of the complainant for payment of the electric bill. Electric bill of the disputed premises was always paid by the O.P. No.4 & obviously most of the time through the husband of the complainant the O.P. never seen the complainant. Accordingly no question arises for a partnership business with her. The disputed premises is all along under the possession of O.P. No.4. Complainant husband had a good influence over the local police. Complainant husband is now forcible occupying the disputed premises. Complainant & her husband are illegal trespasser to the disputes premises. They are not consumer under none of the O.P. nor had she hired service of any of the O.Ps. Case is not coming within ambit of the Court.
OP No.1 to 3 states that until the electricity connection is not provided to the complainant, there can be no relationship of consumer and service providers between the complainant and these OPs. They unequivocally say that OP No.4 is their consumer since 2002 having 3KW under General Purpose Category having Consumer No. – BX- 67283 Corresponding to New A/c No.- 4211-0103-0284.
Having heard the learned Counsels of the respective parties and after close scrutiny of the case record, it is found that in fact OP No.4 is a consumer since 2002 having 3KW under General Purpose Category having Consumer No. – BX- 67283 Corresponding to New A/c No.-4211-0103-0284. There is no material in record to say that OP No.4 and the Complainant are partners in business. Neither any evidence on that score has popped up during hearing. No in no stretch of imagination the complainant can be hold as a consumer under OP No.1, 2 & 3. As the complainant is not a consumer, the dispute among the parties can not be termed as a consumer dispute and can be adjudicated in this commission. Hence, the consumer complaint is dismissed.
This order is pronounced in the open Court on this the 5th day of June 2023 under my hand and seal of the Commission.
