Order No. 7,  dtd. 05.12.2023

The case record is taken up for consideration for passing order in the matter of the application filed by the Complainant of the CC case u/s 38(8) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 wherefrom this MA Case has been cropped up.

It transpires from the extant records that the other side has been preferring non-appearance before this Commission in connection with the hearing of the MA case in spite of allowance of sufficient opportunities.

The submission of the applicant of the instant MA Case has been heard.

It is the main point of contention and argument of the applicant of the MA case who is also the Complainant of the CC case No. 222 of 2022 in a nutshell is as follows.

The petitioner, reportedly holder of a diploma in beautician course, with an intention to purchase a shop space for the purpose of starting a beauty parlour approached to the OP 1, a developer for purchase of a shop space.  OP 1 is claimed to have promised that the shop would be constructed upon the Municipal holding no. 30B, Arabinda Road under Konnagar Municipality.

Accordingly a sale agreement was executed on 21.02.2017 and the consideration price for the said shop was fixed at Rs.2,16,000/-. The petitioner claims to have paid an amount of Rs.2,20,000/- only in installments and the entire payment was made within 22.01.2021.

However the petitioner had to take possession of the said shop space which was substantially incomplete at the time of taking possession.

The applicant applied for electricity connection in respect of the scheduled shop room to CESC. But allegedly, when the concerned persons of CESC appeared at the spot for the required inspection in connection with giving new connection, the OP 1 of the CC case allegedly made such hurdles by piling bricks around the meter board so that the meter board was inaccessible to the CESC personnel.

Consequently, it is not being possible for the applicant to start her business.

The applicant i.e. the Complainant of the CC case thus filed the instant MA case before this Commission seeking direction by passing an interim order upon the OP 1 of the CC case to clear the hindrance and arrange free access to the concerned persons of the power distribution Company to make necessary inspection.

In the last occasion the applicant of the MA case was given liberty to file the relevant ruling in this regard. Accordingly the applicant of the MA case by filing a put up petition submitted a ruling of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court on 23.11.23.

On 10.11.23 a petition filed by the OP of the MA case praying further time for filing objection against the MA case stood rejected as none moved the petition even at 11-40 AM in spite of repeated call.

However so far as the Ruling referred to by the Applicant of the MA case is concerned, in the case of Abhimanyu Mazumdar v. Superintending Engineer and another Hon’ble Calcutta High Court observed that ‘……a person in settled possession of a property as illustrated in the case Rame Gowda (supra) is free to apply for supply of electricity without the consent of the owner of the same and is entitled to get electricity and enjoy the same until he is evicted by due process of law.’

However today i.e. the day on which the order of the MA case is supposed to be passed, a written objection by OP of the MA case has been submitted which is kept on records only.  As the prayer for further time for filing objection against the MA case stood rejected in the earlier occasion, the content of the written objection submitted today cannot be taken into consideration at this juncture.

Materials on records are perused.

For the purpose of arriving at a decision over the issue involved in the MA Case this Commission on perusal of the relevant records finds that the applicant’s allegation regarding creation of impediment to the inspection of the CESC officials by the OP is not even supported by circumstantial evidences.

Considering all the aspects of the issue this District Commission is of the opinion that for fair adjudication of the MA case the matter as well as the ruling will be considered  along with the trial.

MA case is disposed accordingly.