PER: HON’BLE MR. SAMARESH PRASAD CHOWDHURY, PRESIDING MEMBER
The challenge in this appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) is to the Final Order dated 14.03.2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hooghly at Chinsurah (in short, Ld. District Forum) in Consumer Complaint No. 182/2016. By the impugned order, the Ld. District Forum allowed the complaint lodged by the Respondent with a direction upon the Opposite Party No.1 i.e. Assistant Engineer, West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (WBSEDCL), Khanyan to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- in favour of complainant/respondent within 30 days from date, failing which a cost of Rs.50/- for each day’s delay to be paid in the Consumer Legal Aid Account.
The Respondent herein being Complainant lodged the complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the Ld. District Forum asserting that a property comprising 7 decimals of land with a structure thereon lying and situated at L.R. Dag No.983 corresponding to L.R. Khatian No.845, P.S.- Magra, Dist- Hooghly belonged to one Paresh Nath Neogy, who expired on 20.06.2011. The complainant has purchased the said property on 11.11.2013 by way of a registered Deed from Sri Dhruba Jyoti Neogy, son of Paresh Nath Neogy. After purchase, the complainant approached OP No.1 on several occasions for deletion of name of erstwhile owner and record his name but it yielded no result. On 26.09.2016 the complainant through his constituted Attorney applied in prescribed form to Khanyan CCC of the WBSEDCL but it also remain unattended. Subsequently, the complainant through his constituted Attorney drew the attention of OP No.1 about the order of injunction passed by the Ld. Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court, Hooghly in T.S. No.37/2016 whereby Sri Ardhendu Neogy, Secretary of ‘Aamra Kaajan’ Club and others were restrained from disturbing from peaceful possession of the complainant over the property in which electric meter subsists till disposal of the suit but this time also OP No.1 flatly denied to give any relief. Ultimately, the complainant moved the Hon’ble High Court and the Hon’ble High Court by an order dated 13.11.2017 in WP471(W) of 2017 [Sisir Kr. Mukherjee – Vs. – The State of West Bengal & Ors.] directed the WBSEDCL to record the change of the name so far as the meter installed at the suit premises is concerned in favour of the complainant. The complainant has alleged that the OP No.1 and his office has wilfully refused to render the services and unduly influenced by the outsiders causing harassment and mental agony. Hence, the respondent approached the Ld. District Forum with prayer for several reliefs, viz. (a) an order directing OP No.1 to record the name of the complainant in the office record as ‘ consumer’ in respect of Consumer Id. No.163134267 and the Electric Meter thereunder in place of erstwhile owner Late Paresh Nath Neogy; (b) a compensation of Rs.50,000/- for harassment and mental agony and (c) litigation cost.
The Appellant No. 1 being OP No. 1 by filing a written version has stated that he came to learn that series of cases has been filed by the complainant and his father before different Courts including Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta including two writ petitions against the State of West Bengal & Ors. On behalf of OP, it has been stated that the complainant had applied for change of name of consumer in respect of Consumer Id. No.163134267 on 27.09.2016. On that date Ardhendu Neogy, Secretary of Aamara Kaajan Club also submitted a letter and raised objection as some legal proceedings pending in Chinsurah Court. After receiving the letters, inspection was held on 18.10.2016 but they could not get any solution on the spot. Therefore, the complaint should be dismissed.
After assessing the materials on record, the Ld. District Forum by the impugned order allowed the consumer complaint with certain directions, as indicated above. However, being dissatisfied with the said order of imposition of compensation and litigation cost, the OP No.1along with other OPs have come up in this Commission with the present appeal.
Ld. Advocate for the appellants has submitted that the Ld. District Forum has failed to appreciate that the local club has restrained the WBSEDCL from taking steps in favour of the complainant because the name of the Secretary of the local club was recorded as beneficiary of the meter. The Ld. Advocate for the appellant has also submitted that as there was disputed question of facts, the Ld. District Forum should not have awarded any amount of compensation, more particularly, when in terms of the order of Hon’ble High Court, the connection was effected in the name of complainant.
Per contra, Ld. Advocate for the respondent drawing my attention to Paragraph-3 of Memorandum of Appeal has submitted that the appellants/OPs have admitted that one Sri Ardhendu Neogy fraudulently recorded his name as beneficiary of the meter. The said statement proves the contention of the respondent/complainant in Paragraph-9 of the petition of complaint that the OP No.1/Appellant No.1 and his office has wilfully refused to render the services to the complainant being influenced by outsiders for reasons best known to OP No.1.
We have given due consideration to the submission made by the Ld. Advocates appearing for the parties and scrutinised the materials on record.
Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is the main provision casting an obligation upon every distribution licensee to give supply of electricity to the premises when the application by the owner or occupier of such premises is made and Sub Section (1) of Section 43 of the said Act enjoins upon the distribution licensee to give such supply of electricity to the owner or occupier of the premises, as the case may be, within one month after receipt of the application requiring such supply. Therefore, the only point has to be looked into whether the Complainant is an occupant of the premises or not.
Admittedly, respondent became the owner of the premises in question by way of a Sale Deed dated 13.11.2013 duly registered in the office of the District Sub Registrar-I, Hooghly. It is also not in dispute that on 27.09.2016 the respondent approached the OP No.1 for change of ownership being Consumer Id. No.163134267 but OP No.1 tried to avoid the same on the plea of legal proceedings. However, it is quite apparent that on behalf of respondent, an order of injunction was moved before the Ld. Civil Judge (Junior Division) 1st Court, Hooghly in connection with T.S. No.37 of 2016 and by an order dated 31.08.2016 the Ld. Civil Court passed an order restraining Sri Ardhendu Neogy and others from disturbing the peaceful possession of the respondent/complainant over the property in which the disputed meter subsists till the disposal of the suit.
Despite such order passed by a competent Civil Court, the OP No.1 did not change the name in favour of actual owner simply basing upon the objection raised by Sri Ardhendu Neogy, Secretary of a club. In this regard, the observation of the Hon’ble High Court dated 13.01.2017 in WP471(W) of 2017 appears to be noteworthy –
“........ if a person who has not been found in possession of the suit premises by a Civil Court, the Distribution Company being a authority, cannot direct the petitioner to act contrary to the findings recorded in the civil proceedings. The Distribution Company is not above the Civil Court. They are bound by the order of the Civil Court in validly constituted proceeding and cannot act in derogation thereof”.
The fact remains that without adhering to the application made by actual owner of the property and the order of a competent Civil Court, issued a notice upon the respondent/complainant on 25.10.2016 which is contrary to the findings of the Civil Court. Had OP No.1 complied with the order of the Civil Court, respondent /complainant would not have taken the burden to approach the Ld. District Forum or the Hon’ble High Court by filing a writ petition for getting redressal of his remedies.
Therefore, negligence or deficiency on the part of OP No.1/appellant no.1 i.e. the Station Manager of Khanyan CCC is quite clear. The conduct of OP No.1 is certainly against the spirit of the legislative mandate causing unnecessary harassment and mental agony to the respondent. Therefore, the Ld. District Forum was quite justified in awarding compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.
However, the Ld. District Forum had no reason to impose a cost of Rs.50/- per day in case of failure to make payment after expiry of 30 days from the date of the order because there was no prayer for imposition of costs in that fashion. We are not unmindful about the avowed object behind the legislation of the Act to protect the interest of the consumer and in doing so, liberal and purposive interpretation has to be placed on the scheme of the Act avoiding hyper technical approach. At the same time, we must not be obsessed with the proposition of law that fair procedure is the hallmark of every legal proceeding and an affected party is entitled to be put to notice of the claim which such affected party has to meet. Therefore, the order of imposition of cost of Rs.50/- per day after expiry of 30 days from the date of order being not sustainable should be set aside.
In view of the above, the impugned order is modified only to the extent that the OP No.1/appellant no.1 shall have no obligation to pay cost of Rs.50/- for each day’s delay after expiry of 30 days from the date of impugned order. However, the amount awarded by the Ld. District Forum as compensation and litigation cost aggregating Rs.15,000/- is maintained and the said amount must be paid within 45 days from date in default, the amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from date till its realisation.
With the above observations, the instant appeal stands disposed of.
The Registrar of this Commission is directed to send a copy of this order to the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hooghly at Chinsurah for information.
