Consumer Complaint No.158 of 2016
Date of filing:06.09.2016 Date of disposal:31.07.2017
Complainant: Prabhat Kumar Dey, S/o. Late Jatindra Nath Dey, resident at Baranilpur, Arya
Pally (Near Tapeswari Kali Bari), P.O.-Sripally, P.S. & Dist.-Burdwan, Pin-713103.
-VERSUS-
Opposite Party: 1. Station Manager, Burdwan Customer Care Centre-III, WBSEDCL, having its
office at Baranilpur Bazar, P.O.-Sripally, Pin-713103, P.S. & Dist.-Burdwan.
2. AE & SM, Burdwan Customer Care Centre-III, WBSEDCL, having its office at
Baranilpur Bazar, P.O.-Sripally, Pin-713103, P.S. & Dist.-Burdwan.
3. Managing Director, Sugam Park, Sukh Sagar Unit 1F, 2/5 Sarat Chandra
Bose Road, Kolkata-700 020.
4. Divisional Manager, Burdwan (Urban) Division, WBSEDCL, Power House
Para, P.O., P.S. & Dist.-Burdwan.
5. Amit Kumar Dey, S/o.Ram Kamal Dey, resident of Baranilpur, Arya Pally,
P.O.-Sripally, Dist.-Burdwan, Pin-713103.
Present : Hon’ble Member : Sri Pankaj Kr. Sinha
Hon’ble Member : Smt. Silpi Majumder
Appeared for the Complainant: Ld. Advocate, Debjyoti Banerjee
Appeared for the Opposite Party No.1 to 3: Ld. Advocate Biswanath Nag.
Appeared for the Opposite Party No4: None.
JUDGEMENT
This is a case U/s 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service against the O.Ps. and praying for relief claiming Rs.500000/- for compensation, Rs.18,700/- towards the cost of generator and Rs.30,000/- towards litigation cost.
The complainant’s case is short is that the complainant holds consumer ID No.500475551. It is domestic connection having service connection No.D-28397. The WBSEDCL raises quarterly bills and the same stands paid up to date. There is no arrear. No default. The complainant’s premises is situated at Baranilpur being holding No.203 of ward No.12 of Mohalla Arya Pally of Burdwan Municipality. The complainant noticed in the morning in his house that there was no connection whereas other s area had electric supply intact. The complainant regarding non-availability of electric supply was registered with the CCC-III, WBSEDCL vide Docket No.4769101 dated 17.8.2016. But men of O.Ps. did not come to the house of the complainant. Complainant again registered on the same day after few hours and then again after few hours. The last complaint made on 17.8.2016 vide docket No.4776008. On 18.8.2016 the O.Ps. men came to the house of the complainant and checked the service line and informed that line has been damaged and required replacement. The O.Ps. asked the complainant to purchase a particular type of cable from the market for replacement to the damaged service line. They also asked for lodging another complaint. The complainant purchased the cable but the O.Ps. showing reluctance. Then the complainant made a representation to the Divisional Manager, WBSEDCL, Burdwan on 19.8.2016. On 19.8.2016 at about 10.45 PM men of the O.ps. came and started the replacement work. They broke the seal of the meter removed the old service line and put up the new service line in the meter and were progressing the work. Very strangely, although said men had come at about 10.45 in the night but immediately after the men of the O.Ps. had come to do the said repairing work, the daughter-in-law of my brother came and expressed that she has objection against the change of service line. The men of the O.Ps. however, shut down the line, dismantled the meter, took out the damaged service line and introduced the new cable and proceeded towards the angle. At that time those men received some phone calls as if someone gave them some instruction and they did not connect the service line to the angle or thereafter further to the pole alleging that there is obstruction. Although there was no any forceful obstruction. Yet the men of the O.Ps. did not do the work. Thereby a memo No.SM/BDN/CCC-3/FIR/1548(ii) dated 20.8.2016 the AE & SM/BDN/CCC-3 forwarded copy of a letter written by said authority to the Inspector-in-charge, Burdwan Sadar Police Station, inter alia, stating that as per call docket No.4830814 dated 19.8.2016 the Mobile Van Service (Night Shift) went to restore the power of electricity connection in the complainant’s name Prabhat Kumar Dey at Baranilpur Arya Pally by changing damage service line on 19.8.2016 and that a per report of Sri Tarun Kuri, Supervisor Mobile Van ( Night Shift) while they went to execute the fuse call work one lady with her little daughter, the other family member of building physically obstructed against the executing of work for restoration of power. Soon after receipt of that letter the complainant issued a letter to the said AE and SM Burdwan CCC-III. The complainant objected to the contents of that letter as because actually there was no obstruction worth its meaning which could have justified non-completion of the work of change of the damage service line. It was categorically stated that the alleged obstruction was to minimal to justify stoppage or work. For this reason the complainant and his family was passing days and nights without electric connection and obviously they were suffering a lot. The O.Ps. incorporated a further point that the so called objector who was obstructing alleged that a case is pending with regard to the premises in question and a status quo order is in force. The complainant met with the concerned authority and even higher authorities and stated that the so call status quo was in respect of some other service connection and there is no court proceeding so far as the instant connection was concerned and also that involving the premises there was a Partition Suit in which the WBSEDCL is neither a party nor in any way interested and further that the damage that occurred is in the property of the WBSEDCL that is in the service line and that the allegation of so called obstruction or Civil Suit etc. were mere alibi and there was no valid reason for the O.Ps. to remain inactive and keep the complainant who has no arrear or default. Due to inaction of WBSEDCL the complainant have been compelled to hire generator service to meet the essential necessity of running the jet pump for arranging the water and also for having energy connection in service for some time and in doing so the complainant is incurring a cost of more than Rs.1100/- for running the generator for 12 hours in a day. Hence this case.
The O.ps beg to submit that the service connection having consumer ID No.500475551 under Burdwan Customer Care Centre Sector-III, Burdwan stands in the name of Probhat Kumar Dey of Baranilpur, Arya Pally, P.O.-Sripally, P.s. & Dist.-Burdwan and the complainant since installation had been enjoying electricity regularly through the aforesaid connection and subsequently a complaint was lodged on 17.8.2016 vide Docket No.4769101 and after receipt of the said fuse call the Mobile Van service attended the fuse cal on the same date at 2nd shift as the complainant did not respond the mobile call of 1st shift Mobile Van and found the service line as damaged in condition and accordingly the complainant was asked to collect the new service cable for replacement of the damaged service line and also asked him to make further call docket and thereafter on 19.8.2016 another call docket was made vide Docket No.4830814 and accordingly the Mobile Van of the O.ps. went to the complainant’s premises to restore the power with replacement of damaged service line/cable on the same date at night shift but at the time execution of the said work in presence of the complainant one lady along with her little daughter claiming to be the other Co-owner of the premises in question raised vehement objection and obstructed physically against execution of the said work alleging that a court case with regard to the self same premises is pending before the Civil Court and a status quo order is in force, and thereafter the mobile van service of the O.ps. fails to do the work and returned and reported the same to the O.P. No.1 and the same was intimated to the Inspector in charge, Burdwan Sadar Police Station vide office memo No.SM/BWN CCC-III/FIR/1584 dated 20.8.2016 after serving copy of the same to the complainant and it further submitted that one Amit Kumar Dey had applied for getting a new electric connection on 9.1.2015 in his premises in prescribed form of WBSEDCL and after receipt of the said application a quotation was issued on 10.1.2015 to the said Amit Kumar Dey and the said Amit Kr. Dey deposited the quotational amount on 21.1.2015 and accordingly an work order was issued on 22.1.2015 for effecting the proposed connection and thereafter the enlisted contractor went to the premises of Amit Kr.Dey on 3.2.2015 but they could not effect the said connection due to objection raised by the other co-owner of the premises in question and thereafter one Provat Kr. Dey i.e. this complainant claiming to be one of the co-owners raised objection in writing on 4.2.2015 stating therein that a title suit being No.147/2013 is pending before the Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Burdwan for partition of the premises in question and the said Amit Kr. Dey was informed about the reason for non-effecting such connection vide letter dated 11.2.2015. Moreover one electric connection having consumer ID No.512097261 stands in the name of Mahadeb Dey is disconnected in position due to outstanding dues of Rs.19,663/- in the self same premises. Subsequently, even in view of the opinion of the higher Authority the enlisted contractor was again instructed to effect be said connection vide Memo No.SM/BDN/CCC-III/NSC/MJE/373 dated 5.5.2015 but the connection could not be effected due to further objection and the same was informed to the said Amit Dey vide memo No.SM/BDN/CCC-III/NSC/MJE/919 dated 4.5.2015. Subsequently, Mr. Asish Banerjee, Ld. Advocate for Provat Kumar Dey has issued notice to these O.Ps. asking them not to effect the proposed connection due to pending Civil Suit in respect of the premises in question and as such there was no laches or negligence on the part of the O.ps..
However, knowing everything Amit Kr. Dey had initiated a case being D.F. Case No.23/2016 and after hearing both sides the Ld. Forum has disposed of the said case. Similarly knowing everything just to harass these O.ps. filed the instant case inspite of having no latches or negligency on the part of these O.Ps. , however, in view of the interim order of this Ld. Forum supply of electricity has been restored. Actually, the dispute involved herein is not a consumer dispute at all but a civil dispute so in view of the above the complainant’s instant case is fit to be dismissed with cost.
The O.ps. further beg to submit that in view of Section 42(5) and (6) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Rules and Regulations made there under if there is any grievance against non supply of electricity, at that should be ventilated before the Regulatory Commission or before the person or Authority empowered by the said Act and as such having an alternative and appropriate Forum this Ld. Forum has got no jurisdiction to try with the instant case our Apex Court is also in the same view. Consequently the same is fit to be dismissed with costs.
DECISION WITH REASONS
During the day of hearing none appeared on behalf of the complainant and the O.Ps. Nos. 1, 2 & 3. The O.P. No.4 did not contest the case by filing written version. So the decision for approaching the judgment the matter is disposed on merit depending upon the complaint, written versions of O.Ps., evidences adduced by the parties and perused all the papers and documents.
The complainant alleged that his electric connection was suddenly became off. He informed the O.Ps. They found the cause of disconnection of electricity as the leakage on the part of the old cable . Accordingly the complainant was advised to change the cable line and he made it. That is he change the old cable line with a new one. Thereafter when the service connection was being done some one objected to give the service connection. After the filing of the case one Amit Kr. Dey wanted to be added party in this case. It was allowed by this Forum. It was noticed that O.P. No.4 i.e. Amit Kr. Dey has taken a plea that a Title Suit is still pending before Ld. CT Civil Court by and between the complainant and other members of the family including the O.P. No.4. But very surprisingly the O.P. No.4 did not contest the case by filing any written version. The complainant also reiterated that there is no such Title Suit pending before the CT Civil Court. So that the complainant is entitled to get electric connection at his portion as it is an essential service. O.P. No.4 has also failed to show the Forum as to whether there is any status quo order for the Ld. CT Civil Court or not as he has not contested the case at all. The O.Ps. took the plea that during pendency of the Civil Suit the Forum cannot adjudicate the present dispute. In this regard we may refer a judgment reported in CPJ Vol-III, 2004 P-106 (NC), where Their Lordships have held that ‘it should be well understood that under the Consumer protection Act, 1986, the Forum/Commission has to decide the matters de hors of all technicalities developed under our Civil/Criminal jurisprudence. This is obvious because the procedure prescribed under the C.P. Act does not provide for application of Evidence Act or the Civil Procedure Code. The dispute is to be decided on the yardstick of reasonable probability of the basis of facts brought on record’. On the basis of such verdict of the Hon’ble NCDRC we are of the opinion that there is no bar to adjudicate the present dispute of the complainant though a Title Suit is pending before the Civil Court. Moreover, we all know that electricity is very essential in everyday life and in the instant case the complainant is living without electricity for a prolonged period. In this respect we may refer to the judgment reported in 2001 (1) CLJ 140 where Hon’ble Justice Ashoke Kumar Ganguly has held that ‘the expression ‘life’ under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been construed to mean quality of life and life with all the amenities and benefits in a civilized society. The right to get electricity is certainly covered within the broad sweep of ‘life’ under Article 21’. His Lordship has further held ‘in the current day realities of growing consumerism electricity is an essential requirement. If a person is willing to obtain super of electricity of necessary charges to the licensee and the licensee is willing to supply electricity, the right of such person to get electricity must be construed keeping in mind the broad vision of Article 21 of the Constitution of India’.
Having regard to the abovementioned observation we are of the opinion that the complainant is very much entitled to get electricity at his portion. Hence, it is
Ordered
that the complaint is allowed on contest without any cost against the O.P. No.1 to 3 and exparte against the O.P. No.4. The O.P. No.1 to 3 are directed to give permanent electric service connection at the premises of the complainant within 30 days from the date of passing of this judgment and to pay Rs.5000/- for mental pain and agony and also to pay Rs.500/- for litigation cost to the complainant either jointly or severally. In default of compliance of the abovementioned order, the complainant will be at liberty to put the decree in execution as per provision of law.
Let plain copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per provisions of law.
Dictated and corrected by me.
(Sri Pankaj Kr. Sinha)
Member
D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan
(Silpi Majumder) (Sri Pankaj Kr. Sinha)
Member Member
D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan
