DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESAL FORUM
NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.
C. C. CASE NO. 22/2015
Date of Filing: Date of Admission Date of Disposal:
14.01.2015 14.01.2015 23.07.2015
Complainant = Vs. = O.Ps.
Sri Subhas Chandra Pramanik 1. Nirmalendu Mukherjee
S/o. Akshoy Pramanik S/o. Lt. Harigopal Mukherjee
of PN-91, Polenite, Uttarpara, 2. Lili Mukherjee
Salt Lake, Sector-V, 3. Moumita Mukherjee
Electronics Complex, both D/o. Nirmelendu Mukherjee
North 24 Parganas, all are of AA Block, 263, Salt Lake,
Kolkata-700002. Sector-I, P.O.-Bidhannagar,
P.S.-North Bidhannagar,
Kolkata-700064.
4. The Divisional Manager of
WBSEDCL, of Bidhannagar-II,
261, Sector Salt Lake City,
Calcutta-700064.
5. The S.S. and Manager,
Electricity Supply, at
Bidhannagar-II, 261, Sector
Lake City, Calcutta-700064.
J U D G E M E N T
Facts of the case, in short, is that the complainant has installed a Meter Box with the help of OP Nos. 4 and 5 in the land of the complainant over heading the electric wire from pole of Meter Box and the electric wire also over headed the land of the complainant.
Complainant also stated that the complainant requested the OP Nos. 1 to 3 to wire the electricity line over the common passage which is just on Eastern side but the OP did not heed over the matter and they in collusion and in connivance with OP Nos. 4 and 5 to cut down the electricity connection over the complainant premises. Hence the complainant.
Dictated and corrected Contd. …. 2/-
C. C. Case No.-22/2015
- :: 2:: -
OP Nos. 1 to 3 and 4 & 5 has contested the case by filing separate written version.
OP Nos. 1 to 3 stated that the complainant is not at all a consumer and neither the dispute can be termed as consumer dispute according to the provision of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
OP Nos. 1 to 3 also stated that the complainant have not availed any service from these OP Nos. 1 to 3 in any manner at all in lieu of any consideration and neither these OP Nos. 1 to 3 are the service provider in any respect, then how come the dispute can be termed as consumer dispute and the complainant be termed as consumer as per provisions of section 2 of the Consumer Dispute Act, 1986.
OP Nos. 1 to 3 further stated that the complainant actually have encroached upon the land of these OP Nos. 1 to 3 and are now trying to dispossess these OP Nos. 1 to 3 from their own land by this heinous acts with help of local antisocial people and not only that the complainant have taken electrical connection in or over the land of these OP Nos. 1 to 3 with the help and in collusion and in connivance with the OP Nos. 4 and 5 and now by filing this instant complaint case is trying to cement his illegal acts by practicing fraud upon the Ld. Forum. It is further stated by these OP Nos. 1 to 3 that the OP Nos. 2 and 3 are the lawful owners in respect of a plot of land measuring 6 cottah 2 chittack 33 sq. ft comprised in Dag No-786 within Mouza Thakdari by virtue by purchase vide deed of sale being No-4414 date 09.10.1996 and this complainant sometime in the month of September 2012 taking advantage of the absence of the OP Nos. 2 and 3 somehow obtained electric connection in their premises by erecting and/or stretching electric line in or over the land of the OP Nos. 2 and 3 in collusion and in connivance with the OP Nos.4 and 5. The OP Nos. 2 and 3 since 2012 have made several representations before the OP Nos. 4 and 5 for shifting the unauthorized electric line stretched overhead in or over the land of the OP Nos. 2 and 3 but all such efforts were in vain.
OP Nos. 1 to3 stated that the OP Nos. 2 and 3 being dejected with the illegal acts and conducts of the complainant and the OP Nos. 4 and 5 has been compelled to file a suit for declaration, recovery of possession, mandatory injunction and permanent injunction against the complainant and WBSEDCL in the Ld. 2nd Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division at Barasat being T.S. No-162 of 2015 which is pending for disposal. Moreover in the said suit the Ld. Court has been pleased to pass an order of ad interim injunction against the OPs of the said suit.
Dictated and corrected Contd. …. 3/-
C. C. Case No.-22/2015
- :: 3:: -
OP Nos. 4 and 5 stated that the complainant had applied for new service connections through procedure A vide application no-1000919166 dated 27.06.2012 with self declaration of way leave at Polenite Dag No-788 under Bidhannagar Customer Care Centre-II.
OP Nos. 4 and 5 also stated that on receiving said application one inspection was made by these OPs on 30.06.2012 and on the basis of that physical inspection done by the Technical Staff of these OPs. One quotation had been generated on 06.07.2012 and served to the complainant for his new service connection. Accordingly the complainant had paid said quotation amount on 24.07.2012.
OP Nos. 4 and 5 further stated that thereafter on the basis of that, LT network had been prepared through several numbers of PCC poles and through overhead service, connection had been given to the complainant on 06.02.2013.
OP Nos. 4 and 5 stated that on 19.12.2014 one grievance petition from CRM Cell, Bidyut Bhavan had been received by these OPs against the present complainant by Lily Mukherjee, C/o. Dr. Nirmalendu Mukherjee for removal of LTOH line from her premises (plot of Thakdari, Dag No-786, Khatian No-300, J.L. No-19). The physical inspection was made and it was found that LTOH line through which connection had already been given to the complainant is passing over the premises of Lily Mukherjee.
OP Nos. 4 and 5 also stated that as per regulation the complainant/consumer has to provide alternative route through which connection can be given to him otherwise disconnection may be done for wrongful declaration as per regulation no-55, clause no-4.5 of WBERC for incorrect and wrong declaration.
OP Nos. 4 and 5 further stated that in the meantime the present complainant has also given a letter accepting the said wrongful declaration of way leave vide letter no-210 dated 07.01.2015 and declared to remove the electric line through proper way leave and alternatively he will accept the decision of these OPs according to rules.
Point for Decision:-
Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for?
Dictated and corrected Contd. …. 4/-
C. C. Case No.-22/2015
- :: 4:: -
Decision
Both parties filed affidavit in chief and we have perused the said affidavit in chief and other documents. It may be mentioned here that OP Nos. 1 to 3 has stated in paragraph-3 of their written version that a title suit i.e. suit for declaration, recovery of possession, mandatory injunction, and permanent injunction against the complainant and WBSEDCL in the Ld. 2nd Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division at Barasat being T.S. No-162 of 2015 which is pending for disposal. Moreover in the said suit the Ld. Court has been pleased to pass an order of ad interim injunction against the OPs of the said suit. In this connection we want to reply on decision reported in 2015 (2) CPR 744 (NC) where in it has been held “when a Civil suit is pending between parties, Fora should not arrogate to themselves powers which they do not have.” In view of the aforesaid decision we are of the view that complainant is not entitled to get any relief from this Forum.
Hence
Ordered,
that the complaint be and the same is dismissed on contest against O.Ps.
Parties to bear their own cost.
Let copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost when applied for.
Member President
Dictated & Corrected by me.
