Date of filing:- 07/04/2015
Date of Order:- 15/03/2017
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FOURM (COURT)
B A R G A R H.
Consumer Dispute Case No. 28 of 2015.
Patanjali Sastri S/o. Late Purna Chandra Shastri Kalabatia, aged about – 51(fifty one), Occupation- Business, R/o. Patanjali Nivas, Ward No.3, College Road P.o/P.s/Dist-Bargarh. ..... ..... ..... ..... Complainant.
Executive Engineer, WESCO / GRIDCO, At/Po/Ps/Dist. Bargarh.
..... ..... ..... Opposite Party.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant :- Sri R .K. Pati, Advocate with other Advocates.
For the Opposite Party :- Sri. J.P. Singh, Advocate with other Advocates.
-: P R E S E N T :-
Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.
Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r.
Dt.15/03/2017. -: J U D G E M E N T:-
Presented by Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra, President.
Brief facts of the case –
The case of the Complainant is that, he being the third son Dr. P.C. Shastri Kalawatia was living with his parents during their life time till the death of his father till Dt. 31.03.2012 in the premises wherein Electric connection was supplied with vide Consumer No. C/2K/18/1127/0108 wherein an out standing amount of Rs. 980/-(Rupees nine hundred eighty)only was cleared by his father along with Rs.100/-(Rupees one hundred)only was paid in lieu of reconnection charges vide Receipt No.064002134 Dt. 07.05.2006. And after the death of his father, he has succeeded to that particular portion of the total premises as of his share allotted to him during the life time of his father in an amicable family partition and also accordingly separate fraction of the same has been allotted to each of his other brothers and all of them are enjoying electric connection excepting the Complainant. He has applied for the connection of electricity to him separately and has also paid the connection charges but the Opposite Party is avoiding repeatedly with an objection to furnish complete documents .
Further the case of the complainant is that, one of his brother namely Rajesh Shastri had taken an electricity connection being separated from his family for commercial purpose and was running therein with a chocolate industry which was closed subsequently and against that connection as per the Opposite Party some dues are pending against him which is in no way got any connection with him since it was his personal business for which the Complainant is not liable since the premise was already portioned in an amicable partition amongst their brother, further more his other brothers are allowed with the electric connection in the same premises but to his ill-luck he has been deprived of getting the same facilities even if he has furnished all the formalities for which he has been suffering a lot, even affecting the education of his children, thus the complaint.
In support of his case the Complainant has filed several documents such as the treasury challan deposited by him on Dt.26.05.2014 along with many other documents claiming his entitlement for such connection. It is also pertinent to mention here that as per his contention one of his brother has been given electric connection on the strength of the order of this forum vide C.C. No. 33 of 2013 in a portion of the said premises.
On perusal of the complaint, documents filed, and on hearing the counsel for the Complainant the case was admitted and on being summoned the Opposite Party appeared before the Forum and filed his version denying the case of the Complainant, he has also objected for giving connection to the Complainant mainly on the ground that an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees two lakh)only of dues is pending against one Rajesh Shastri, another connection would not be given in the same premises. And in it’s support has filed some documents pertaining to his case.
Having gone through the pleadings and the documents filed by both parties it has come to our notice that the case rests on two question for adjudication.
Firstly whether there has been any amicable family partition in the family of the Complainant and whether the Complainant is liable for repayments against the dues of his brother .
Secondly whether the Complainant is entitled for the electric connection on the same premises wherein one of his brother’s pending dues are lying un-paid.
Having gone through the entire records, documents filed by the parties and on hearing their respective counsel we are of the view that the said premises is already partitioned among the brothers amicably and residing therein separately, though it has not yet been partitioned by mitt and bound, which can be safely inferred from the facts as contended in the complaint and evidence adduced in shape of affidavit that one of the brother namely Rajesh Shastri had an industry in the name and style as ‘’Tasty chocolate’’ taking a second commercial electricity connection and was running the same during the subsistence of the existing connection of the same in the name of Dr. P.C.Shastri over the same premises. Further more another brother of the Complainant has already obtained his separate connection in his name namely Nagarjuna Shastri in one portion of the said premises on the strength of an order from the forum which is evident from the certified copy of the same filed by the Complainant.
And so far as other part of the points for determination the advocate for the Opposite Party has cited the O.E.R.C. Distribution code (con. of supply)code 2004 wherein u/s 10(i), it is quoted thus “if the applicant in respect of an earlier agreement executed in his name or in the name of his spouse, parents or in the name of a firm or company with which he was associated either as a partner, director or managing director, is in arrears of electricity dues or other dues for the same premises payable to the licensee, the application for supply shall not be allowed by the engineer until the arrears are paid in full”. Again he has reffered (iv) of the same code and the relevant portion of the same reads thus “A licensee shall not refuse connection to an applicant only on the ground that dues on the other portion (s) of such premises have not been paid, nor shall the Licensee demand record of last paid bill of other portion(s) from such applicant.”
So having gone through the above citation it is observed that, the present Complainant /Petitioner is no way related to the said business or it’s profit or loss of in as much as is not at all liable to pay any out standing dues pending against his brother and as such in our considerate view he should not suffer for the default of his brother when he is residing with his family being separated and having his legal right over a portion of the said premises as one of the son of his father Dr.P.C.Shastri further more in the above noted citation of the code in it’s point (iv) it is clearly mentioned that “A licensee shall not refuse connection to an applicant only on the ground that dues on the other portion(s) of such premises have not been paid nor shall the licensee demand record of last paid bill of other portion of (s) from such applicant”, as such our views gone in favor of the Complainant.
Secondly while dealing with the points of consideration as, if the Complainant is entitled for electric connection, in view of of our above detailed discussion we are of the view that, the Complainant is legally entitled for such connection. Hence order follows.
-: O R D E R :-
Hence the Opposite Party is directed to give domestic electric connection to the Complainant within one week from the date of receiving this order.
Secondly the Opposite Party would accept the actual dues that would accrue on his consumption periodically.
Thirdly the Opposite Party is directed not to demand un-paid dues of Rajesh Shastri from the Complainant.
In default of complying with this order the Opposite Party would be liable penal for action as per the provision of the Consumer Protection Act-1986 and would be punished thereunder.
Accordingly the complaint is allowed & disposed off with out any cost.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
I agree, ( Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra)
President.
(Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash)
M e m b e r.
