DATE OF FILING : : 06.01.2017.
DATE OF S/R : 24.03.2017.
DATE OF ORDER : 19.12.2017.
Sri Nemai Kuti,
son of late Jatindra Nath Kuti,
residing at village Dakshin Durgapur, P.S. Shyampur,
District Howrah.………………….……………………….……..…… COMPLAINANT.
1. Station Manager,
WBSEDCL, Ajodhya Customer Care Centre,
Belpukur Shyampur,
District Howrah,
PIN 711314.
2. Sri Tarani Kuti,
3. Sri Srimanta Kuti,
4. Sri Srikanta Kuti,
all sons of late Jatindra Nath Kuti,
residing at village Dakshin Durgapur, P.S. Shyampur,
District Howrah,
PIN 711314.……………………………………….……OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
Hon’ble President : Abdul Kuddus.
Hon’ble Member : Shri Sajal Kanti Jana.
Hon’ble Member : Smt. Banani Mohanta ( Ganguli ).
F I N A L O R D E R
Facts of the case of the complainant, in short, is that Complainant’s residential premises is situated in a bastu land bearing R.S. and L.R. Dag nos. 1105/2565 under LR Khatian no. 1987, Mouza Dakshin Durgapur, P.S. Shyampur, measuring 6 decimal. The complainant inherited the property after the death of his father.
Complainant and o.p. nos. 2 to 4 are the co-sharers and they have been possessing their demarcated portion in the case property.
This complainant applied to the o.p. no. 1 for getting new electric connection in his premises as such he deposited Rs. 447/- as per quotation given by o.p. no. 1. But o.p. no. 1 is not giving any electric connection to his premises and on 15.11.2016 o.p. no. 1 intimated to complainant that due to resistance / objection made by the o.p. nos. 2 to 4 this o.p. no. 1 is not in a position to give electric connection. So this complainant has filed this case and prayed for passing award directing o.p. no. 1 to give electric connection in the residence of the complainant situated in the case property and also made direction upon o.p. nos. 2 & 3 not to raise any objection to give electric connection to the complainant’s premises and other reliefs.
This complaint / case is being contested by the o.p. no. 1 by filing separate written version and by o.p. nos. 2 to 4 filing another written version jointly.
The o.p. no. 1 has denied all allegations as made in the petition of complaint contending interalia that o.p. no. 1 has intention to give electric connection but due to resistance / objection made by the o.p. nos. 2 to 4, the o.p. no. 1 is not in a position to give electric connection to complainant’s premises.
On the other hand specific case of the o.p. nos. 2 to 4 that property where the premises of the complainant situated is the joint property of the complainant and the o.ps. and a civil suit bearing no. 184 of 2009 is pending. These o.p. nos. 2 to 4 not to block the common passage situated in this said bastu land. So this o.ps. have also made prayer to dismiss this complaint.
POINTS FOR DETERMINATION :
i) Is the case maintainable in its present form ?
ii) Whether the complainant is a ‘Consumer’ as per provision of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ?
iii) Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the o.ps as alleged ?
iv) Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
We have carefully heard the submissions made by the ld. advocate for both sides. Perused the BNA submitted by complainant and o.p. no. 1 and o.p. nos. 2 to 4 and the materials on record.
It appears that it is undisputed that the property where residence of the complainant is situated is the joint property of the complainant and the o.p. nos. 2 to 4. It is also undisputed that civil suit being T.S. no. 184 of 2009 filed by one Tarini Kuti and other against Shri Torani is pending. Ld. advocate for the o.p. no. 1 submits that he is always ready to give new electric connection to the premises of the complainant; but o.p. no. 1 is not in a possession to give electric connection due to resistance / objection made by o.p. nos. 2 to 4. On perusal of the xerox copy of the certified copy of judgment of T.S. being no. 184 of 2009. It appears that said suit has been decreed in part on contest without cost in preliminary form and 1/7th share of the parties to this case have been declared and in this case this complainant is the plaintiff no. 2 and a decree for permanent injunction was granted in favour of this plaintiff including this complainant. So it appears to us that no civil suit is pending in the matter of giving electric connection to the plaintiff in the case property. No order has also been passed by civil court in said T.S. 184 of 2009 restraining this complainant to get electric connection in his premises. So we are of the opinion that there is no legal bar to give electric connection to the complainant in the case premises.
Moreover, as per Section 43(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003 that the licensee shall, on an application by the owner or occupier of any premises, give supply of electricity to such premises, within one month after receipt of the applicant requiring such supply.
In the present case, it is not disputed that the premises in which this complainant has made prayer to get electric connection is owned and possessed by complainant. So as per Section 43 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 there is no bar of this complainant to get electric connection in his case premises as complainant has deposited money in o.p. no. 1’s office for getting electric connection.
Moreover, it has been observed by the Hon’ble High Court Calcutta reported in “AIR 2008 Cal page 47(B) that Electricity Act, ( 2003 ) Section 43 and Constitution of India; Article 21 – Right to Electricity is also right to life and liberty in terms of Article 21 because no one, in the modern days, can survive without electricity.”
In view of observation of the Hon’ble High Court Calcutta reported in above we find that no one in the modern days can survive without any electricity and therefore the right of electricity is also right to life and liberty in terms of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
In view of above facts and circumstances we find that the complainant is entitled to get electricity in his premises and o.p. no. 1 is duty bound to give electric connection to case premises.
In this case the allegation against o.p. nos. 2 to 4 that they are making objection. There is nothing on record to show that o.p. nos. 2 to 4 are the service providers and there is relation between the complainant and the o.p. nos. 2 to 4 are as consumer as well as service provider. There is nothing on record to show that this complainant being a consumer buys any goods or avails of any service for consideration from o.p. nos. 2 to 4. So we hold that there is no relation between the complainant and the o.p. nos. 2 to 4 as consumer and service provider.
It has been observed by the Hon’ble National Commission reported in 2015 (2) CPR page 606 (NC) interalia that a person is a consumer who buys any goods or hires or avails of any service for some consideration.
In view of above facts, circumstances, and discussion made above we hold that complainant is not a consumer in respect of o.p. nos. 2 to 4.
It has been observed by the Hon’ble National Commission reported in 2015(2) CPR page 640 (NC) that a person who is not a consumer, has no right to file consumer complaint.
In view of above observation of the Hon’ble National Commission we hold that this complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed against o.p. nos. 2 to 4.
In the result, this consumer complaint succeeds in part in respect of o.p. no. 1.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 4 of 2017 ( HDF 4 of 2017 ) be and the same is allowed on contest against o.p. no. 1 ( Station Manager, WBSEDCL, Ajodhya Customer Care Centre, Belpukur Shyampur, Howrah); but without cost and dismissed against o.p. nos. 2 to 4 ; but without costs.
That the o.p. no. 1 is directed to give new service connection to the premises of the complainant, situated in the case property by 30 days ; if he is not restrained by any order passed by any Court / Tribunal, from the date of receipt of copy of judgment; failing which complainant is at liberty to get this order implemented with due course of law.
If any resistance or objection is made by any person illegally to o.p. no. 1 in the matter of giving electric connection to case premises then the o.p. no. 1 is at liberty to take the aid of police according to law in this regard.
If o.p. no. 1 fails to comply with the direction made above then complainant is at liberty to get this order implemented with due course of law.
Let a plain copy of the judgment be given to the both sides, free of costs, as early as possible.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( Abdul Kuddus )
President, C.D.R.F., Howrah.
