FINAL ORDER / JUDGEMENT
The Complt.’s case is regarding deficiency of services and harassment meted out to him by the O.P.s. the grandfather of the petitioner namely, Bishnu Charan Mondal was he co-owner of 22 decimals land out of 43 decimals of old and L.R. Dag No. 143 appertaining to old Khatian no. 42. L.R. Khatian No. 2904, J.L.No. 32 within Mouza Khayjapur, P.S. Panchla, District Howrah, situated within the jurisdiction of the Ld. Forum. It has also been mentioned by the Complt. that his grandfather had made a construction in the said premises, 190 years back and residing thereof. The Complt., by inheritance, became the co-owner of the said premises and has been residing there peacefully, and using a common passage as the only entrance and exit. Thus, the Complt. had applied for an electric connection at W.B.S.E.D.C.L., Burikhali CCC, by paying the required fees for installation of electric pole and electric connection. Due to the objections from O.P.4-5 the same could not be accomplished. The Complt. also alleges that the Complt. being the licensing authority, W.B.S.E.D.C.L. is bound to provide electric connection within 30 days of the application, but they denied service to the Complt. owing to the objections by O.P.4-5. Therefore, the Complt. has alleged deficiency in services, violation of human rights, against the O.P.s. Helpless and distressed, the Complt. has prayed to this Commission for:
- Direction to O.P.1 to supply electric connection to the Complt. at the property in question.
- Direction to the Panchla Police Station to assist O.P.1 in installation of electric connection to the Complt., in case of objection from O.P.4-5.
- Litigation costs
- Other reliefs as deemed suitable by the Commission.
O.P.4-5 have filed w.v., denying all material allegations against them. They have said that the instant case is not maintainable under law and that the Complt. has no right to file the case. O.P.4-5 have also alleged that the Complt. has suppressed facts and that the case is frivolous. The answering O.P.s have simply denied every statement of the Complt. and have also stated that it is totally false that the Complt. shares a acommon passage as the only ingress and egress. The answering O.P.s have also mentioned that the father, Panchanan Mondal was a co-sharer of eight annas share of plot no. 15 and was in the name of Indu Kumar Mondal and Debendrananth Nath Mondal. The name of those raiyats have duly been recorded in present L.R.R.O.R. in a separate Khatian. The said plot no. 15 kis a recorded Sali and agricultural land and on the eastern side of O.P.s’ plot no. 15. The plot no. 143,144,145,156,157,158 are situated and on the north there is another plot of land. Thus three is no common passage. The O.P.s 4-5 have thus mentioned that the Complt. has no right to get electric connection in the said premises. The answering O.P.s have also alleged that they have not given any no objection consent for installation of electricity in their plot no. 15. Hence the O.P.s 4-5 have prayed for dismissal of the instant case with cost against the Complt.
O.P.s 1-3 have contested the case by filing w.v. denying and disputing the contents of the complaint and has contended inter-alia that there is no cause of action of the case and it is liable to be dismissed. The answering O.P.s have also alleged that the Complt. is not a consumer of O.P.s 1-3 under the C.P. Act 1986. The O.P.s have accused the Complt. of suppressing facts. It may be noted that, according to O.P.1-3, they had gone to effect electric current at the said premises, but O.P.5 and others had objected to the same. O.P.5 had also filed a case of M.P. No.1290 of 2016 in the Court of Ld. S.D.M.(Executive) 2nd Court, Howrah under Section 144(2) of Cr. P.C. wherein the Station Manager Burikhali Customer CARAE Centre, W.B.S.E.D.C.L. is a party and according to the order of Ld. Court, peace was to be maintained in the area until enquiry of Officer-in-Charge, Panchla P.S. The O.P.s 1-3 could not erect install electric connection at the said premises to avoid violation and commotion and to maintain peace. Therefore, the instant case is frivolous and the O.P.s 1-3 have prayed for dismissal of the case.
Points for decision
- Whether the Complt. is the consumer of O.P.s 1-3?
- Whether this Commission (formerly Forum) has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
- Whether there is any unfair trade practice on the part of O.P.s 1-3 or there is any negligence or deficiency of services on the part of the O.P.s 1-3?
- Is the Complt. entitled to get relief/reliefs, as prayed for?
Complt. has filed examination in chief.
Complt. has filed B.N.A.
Complt. has filed affidavit in reply.
Complt. has filed reply to questionnaire of O.P.s 1-3.
Complt. has filed reply to questionnaire of O.P.s 4-5.
Complt. has filed questionnaire against examination in chief of OP.s 1-3.
Complt. has filed questionnaire against examination in chief of OP.s 4-5.
O.P.s have 1-3 filed questionnaire against Complt.
W.A. has been filed by O.P.s 1-3 in the form of B.N.A.
O.P.1-3 have filed examination in chief
O.P.s 4-5 has filed examination in chief
O.P.s 4-5 filed questionnaire against Complt.
O.P.s 4-5 filed reply to the questionnaire of Complt.
O.P.s 4-5 have filed B.N.A.
Decision with reasons
- On close scrutiny of the materials on record, it reveals that no doubt Complt. is a consumer, under section 2(i)(d)(i)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
- Complt. appears to be a resident within district Howrah, whereas the office addresses of O.P.1 and O.P.2 appear to be within district Howrah. The office of O.P.3 is in Kolkata. Present addresses of O.P. 4-5 are within district Howrah. Considering the nature of the case and the prayers of Complt. it straightway gives clear signal that the pecuniary value of the case is within Rs. 2,00,000/- that is within the limits of this Commission(formerly Forum). So, this Commission (formerly Forum) has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try this case.
- It is undisputed that Complt. has prayed for installation of electric meter in his property in question within district Howrah and Complt. deposited the required fees to W.B.S.E.D.C.L., Burikhali CCC for the purpose of installation of new electric connection after installation of pole.
- The main dispute occurred when on 20.09.2016 W.B.S.E.D.C.L. informed the Complt. in writing about their incapability of giving electric supply.
- Further it may be pointed out that Complt. to prove his case in his affidavit in chief has more or less highlighted the same averments as appearing in the petition of Complt. That apart Complt. already furnished different copies of documents in support of his deposit money with the W.B.S.E.D.C.L. authority and in respect of his property in question. On the other hand O.P.1-3 in their affidavit in chief have highlighted the same averments as appearing in their w.v.
- That apart O.P.4-5 in their evidence on affidavit have also countered the case of Complt. and tried to highlight that Complt. is not entitled to have any new electric meter connection.
- This Commission has gone through the B.N.A. filed by the parties including materials on record.
- It is well settled that in view of the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2013)8SCC491(UP POWER CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS-VS-ANIS AHMAD) the electricity act 2003 and the Consumer Protection Act,1986 runs parallel for giving redressal to any person who fall within the meaning of ‘Consumer’ as defined in Section 2(i)(d)(ii) of the Act but it is limited to the dispute relating to unfair trade practice or a restrictive trade practice adopted by the service provider or if the ‘Consumer’ suffers from deficiency in service or hazardous or the service provider has charged a price in excess of the price fixed by or under any law.
- It is well settled that when the legislature in its wisdom has conferred power to a particular authority to do a certain act in a particular way, the said authority should exercise that power conferred upon it within the parameter prescribed under the law. The WBERC is a statutory authority and it flows from the Electricity Act 2003 and as such it has got statutory status.
10. It is pertinent to mention that W.B.S.E.D.C.L. is a creature of statute and obviously w can very much hope that O.P.s 1-3 are doing their service under W.B.S.E.D.C.L. and as such O.P.1-3 has/had no intention to withhold the electric connection of any of its intending consumer.
11. This Commission is of the view that O.P.4 and O.P.5 in fact has no authority to cause disturbance to the Complt. in getting his new electric meter connection. Only point to be looked into by this Commission is that whether Complt. is the occupant of the property in question or not. In this regard the materials on records inspire our confidence in harbouring to the conclusion that there is enough evidence that Complt. is an occupier of the property in question.
The right of electricity is a constitutional right under the ambit of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. We should keep in mind that the Act being a social beneficial legislation and it is our duty to take a liberal view to achieve the avowed object to protect the interest of consumer.
In view of the aforesaid discussion we are constrained to hold that Complt. has succeeded to prove his case.
Hence,
It is,
ORDERED
That the instant case no. CC/20/2017 is allowed on contest against O.P.s1-5 with cost.
O.P.s 1-3 are categorically directed to install new electric meter connection at the property in question of the Complt. within 45 days from the date of this order.
O.P.s 4-5 and their servants and agents are hereby restrained from raising any obstruction in connection with installation of new electric meter connection in the property of the Complt.
Police Commissioner of Howrah Police Commisssionerate is hereby categorically directed for rendering police assistance at the time of effecting new electric meter connection in the property in question of the Complt. without fail. Complt. will bear the cost of such police assistance.
Let free copies of this order be given to the parties free of cost.
Dictated and corrected by me.
Sankar Kumar Ghosh
President, D.C.D.R.C.
Howrah.
Babita Chaudhuri Sankar Kumar Ghosh
Member President
D.C.D.R.C., Howrah D.C.D.R.C., Howrah
