C.F. CASE No. : CC/09/43
COMPLAINANT : Sambit Mitra,
S/o Late Murari Mohan Mitra,
Vill + P.O. Bethuadahari,
P.S. Nakashipara, Dist. Nadia
OPPOSITE PARTIES/OPS : 1. Station Manager,
Bethuadahari Group Electric Supply,
Vill + P.O. Bethuadahari,
P.S. Nakashipara, Dist. Nadia
2. Sri Smarajit Mitra
Vill. Super Market, Palpara,
P.O. Bethuadahari,
P.S. Nakashipara, Dist. Nadia
PRESENT : KANAILAL CHAKRABORTY PRESIDENT
: KUMAR MUKHOPADHYAY MEMBER
: SMT SHIBANI BHATTACHARYA MEMBER
DATE OF DELIVERY
OF JUDGMENT : 10th March, 2010
: J U D G M E N T :
In brief, the case of the petitioner, Sambit Mitra is that he has one electric connection under the OP No. 1 being consumer No. D042856 and he regularly pays the amount of electric bills sent by the OP No. 1. He further submits that he applied before the OP No. 1 for transfer of his meter from its present place and accordingly he deposited Rs. 235/- in favour of OP No. 1 on 27.08.07, but till 12.09.07 the OP No. 1 did not transfer the said meter from its old place to the new place as applied by the complainant. He also submits that the meter was damaged in the flood of 2000 so it required for replacement. On 09.12.08 he requested the OP No. 1 to change the meter and again on 26.05.09, he finally requested the OP to replace his meter, but to no effect. So having no other alternative, he has filed this case praying for the reliefs as stated in the petition of complaint.
The OP No. 1, Bethuadahari Group Electric Supply has contested this case by filing a written version, inter alia, stating that the case is not maintainable in its present form. It is his further case that as per declaration of the petitioner quotation amount being Rs. 235/- was served on 27.08.07 upon the complainant which he deposited on 03.09.07. After deposition of the quotation amount by the complainant an order for shifting the meter was issued on 06.09.07, but due to sudden objection raised by one Smarajit Mitra and Court’s status quo order he failed to execute that order. Thereafter, this OP No. 1 requested the complainant to submit a way leave / NOC within 7 days from the date of issue of that letter. But the complainant failed to file it. The meter in question has already been changed by supplying a good one by this OP. Therefore, the complainant has no cause of action to file this case and the same is liable to be dismissed against him.
One Smarajit Mitra subsequently appeared in this case and prayed for filing written version on his side. That prayer was allowed by this Forum and a written version was filed by him on 17.09.09. It is his contention that the complainant has no cause of action to file this case. Besides this, he is the brother of the complainant also. It is his specific contention that the disputed electric pole is situated on his land from which electric connection is given to his house by the OP electricity authority. If electric connection is given to the house of the complainant from this pole, the wire will pass over the land of the OP No. 2 which will be very dangerous for his living at his house. Out of total 1.70 acres land this OP is the owner of the 28 satak and accordingly L.R. Porcha is prepared in his name. A civil case is pending between the parties with regard to case land. So the complainant has no cause of action to file this case and the same is liable to be dismissed.
POINTS FOR DECISION
Point No.1: Has the complainant any cause of action to file this case?
Point No.2: Is the complainant entitled to get the decree as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Both the points are taken up together for discussion as they are interrelated and for the sake of convenience.
On a careful perusal of the petition of complaint and the written versions filed by OP No. 1 & 2 along with the annexed documents filed by the parties and the report of the ld. advocate commissioner it is available that the complainant and the OP No. 2 are two brothers, who reside on their paternal land under L.R. Daag No. 493/1578, Mouza Bethuadahari, Khatian No. 1711. Regarding the quantum of land possessed by them both the complainant and the OP No. 2 have filed separate porcha. So we find that the actual quantum of land as possessed by them is still disputed. It is also available that civil case is going on between the parties with regard to the case land. But the moot question in this case is to decide whether the complainant is entitled to have a new electric connection at his house from the old as claimed by him. At the prayer of the parties local inspection was held and ld. commissioner has submitted his report before this Forum along with a sketch map. From the sketch map it is available that in between the two residential places of the complainant and the OP No. 2 there is a passage and the disputed pole is situated on the land of the OP No. 2 just adjacent to that passage. It is also established that this passage is used by both the complainant and the OP No. 2. From the report of the commissioner we find that if a new electric connection is drawn from this pole it will pass over a portion of the land of the OP No. 2 and after crossing the common path way it will meet the land of the complainant where he intends to place his new meter. The complainant has not filed any document to show that the path way is exclusively within his possession. Nor he has filed any document to show that the new electric connection will not pass over the land of the OP No. 2 also. Besides this from the written version filed by the OP No. 1 it is available that the old meter of the complainant is changed by him and a new one is already supplied to him. The complainant has not stated any where in his petition of complaint why he wants to shift his meter from its present place to a new place as stated by him. However, the OP No. 1 has the right to shift the meter from its old place to a required place of the complainant but in doing so neither the complainant nor the OP No. 1 has any right to disturb OP No. 2 in using his own land. So the OP No. 1 has rightly asked the complainant to collect way leave / NOC from the OP No. 2 for drawing the new electric line from the pole situated within the land of the OP No. 2. On this point the complainant is silent. Therefore, in view of the above discussions and after hearing the arguments advanced by the ld. lawyers for the parties our considered view is that the complainant has not become able to prove his case. So we do also hold that he is not entitled to get a decree as prayed for. In result the case fails.
Hence,
Ordered,
That the case, CC/09/43 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OP No. 1 & 2 without any cost.
Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.
