Presented by: -
Shri Debasish Bandyopadhyay, President.
Complaint Case No. 163/2018
This Complaint Case has been filed by the complainant against the OP No. 1 for installation of 2 Nos. of Electric Pole and Electric Meter at the residence of the complainant situated at L.R. Dag Nos. 35,36 & 37 under L.R. Khatian No. 675 of Mouza Uttarpirpur, P.S. Uluberia, Dist. Howrah and also for passing direction against OP Nos. 2 to 5 for not raising any objection at the time of erection of the electric pole and for installation of the meter at the residence of the complainant at above noted place.
Case of the complainant
The case of the complainant which is deciphered from the complaint petition in bird’s eye view is that the complainant is a consumer under the OPs within the meaning , scope and extend of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the properties of the complainant situated at L.R. Dag Nos. 35,36 & 37 under L.R. Khatian Dag No. 675 approximate area of the 15 Sataks of Bastu in respect of L.R. Dag No. 36 and area of 5 Sataks Bastu including other properties . According to the case of the complainant all the above noted property was originally owned and possessed by Smt. Maya Santra who died leaving behind complainant and other sons as are legal heirs and representatives and all the legal heirs of deceased Matilal Pandit including complainant and other brothers of complainant residing in the above noted property since long demarcated part and portion of the said property. It is stated that the complainant has been enjoying the said property by exercising all acts of ownership and possession and has been residing there alongwith his family members and but common passage runs from North to South in front of and / or Southern side of L.R Dag Nos. 35, 36 & 37 wherein complainant and other co-sharer i.e. OPs have been residing. It is alleged that the complainant applied before the OP No. 1 for a separate domestic meter at his own residence situated in the above noted Dag No. and Khatian No. and an inspection was also carried out by the men and the OP No.1 and on 16.12.2015 the complainant has paid a sum of Rs. 447 in favour of OP No. 1 out of which Rs. 200 for service connection charges and Rs. 247 is for security deposit. It is further alleged that several requests were made by the complainant to the OP No. 1 to install the meter at the complainant residence. It is submitted that all on a sudden on 27.06.2017 the OP No. 1 went to the complainant premises that to install the electric meter and for effecting electric connection but they could not carried out the job as because the OP Nos. 2 to 5 raised objection and as such OP No. 1 failed to carry out the job and further reason the complainant had lodged a diary before the Uluberia P.S. being G.D. Entry No. 2575 dt. 28.06.2017. It has also been pointed out for several occasions the OP Nos. 2 to 5 assaulted the complainant and his family members and as such the complainant lodged a G.D. Entry before the Uluberia P.S. being No. 1738 dt. 22.08.2017. As per case of complainant side a compromise was also done between the complainant and OPs at the interference of IC, Uluberia P.S. but the OPs have not obeyed the terms and conditions of the said compromise and the OPs appointed a surveyor who had taken measurement of the property and demarcated the portions of their allocated portion and all the parties signed on this rough sketch map drawn by the surveyor. It is also pointed out that the complainant is a lawful owner and he is in bonafide occupation of his own property and as such he is entitled to get electric connection at his own residence. It has been further alleged that the OP No. 1 is guilty of unfair trade practice and lack of proper service for which they may be directed to give electric connection and / or install electric meter to the complainant. According to the case of the complainant side lastly on 12.02.2018 the complainant went to the office of the OP No. 1 to enquire about the service connection but they expressed their inability to complete the job. It has been pointed out that the cause of action arose on 16.05.2015 and thereafter on 27.06.2017, 21.08.2017 & lastly on 12.02.2018. For all these reasons the complainant has instituted the above noted complaint case against the OP No. 1 and other OPs.
Defense Case
The OP No. 1 after receiving notice appeared in this case and has been contested this case filing written version to OP Nos. 2 to 5. In spite of service of notice have not appeared in this case and also have not contested this case for which this case has been running ex-parte against OP Nos. 2 to 5 as per Order No. 10 dt. 03.04.2019.
Defense Case adopted by OP No. 1
The OP No. 1 by filing W/V has been contesting this case and denied each and every allegation raised by the complainant in the complaint petition. According to the case of the OP No. 1 this case is not maintainable in its present form and in the eye of law and this case does not come under the scope, extend and meaning of the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and this case is barred by provision of Consumer Protection Act & Limitation Act. This specific case of the OP No. 1 which is revealed from the W/V in a nutshell is that the complainant applied for new electric connection and accordingly a quotation was issued in view of the complainant and the complainant on 16.12.2015 deposited the said quotation amount and after receiving the quotation amount a Work Order was issued on 23.12.2015 by the OP No. 1 vide Work Order No. 152665 dt. 23.12.2015 and according to the said Work Order the personnel of enlisted contractor of the OP No. 1 i.e. State Electrical Company went to the residential address of the complainant for installation of new service connection at the premises of the complainant for several times but due to strong physical obstruction from OP Nos. 2 to 5 & others they could not giving effect to the new electric connection at the premises of the complainant. According to the case of the OP No. 1 on 14.05.2016 was duly intimated to the complainant and as per verbal request of the complainant the personnel of OP No. 1 again tried to give effect of new electric connection on 27.06.2017 but again due to strong physical objection of OP Nos. 2 to 5 and other the men and agents of OP No. 1 could not give effect of the said to the electric connection at the premises of the complainant. It is submitted in this connection that the OP No. 1 is a creature of statute and it has no intention to withhold the electric connection of any of its intending consumer and in the instant case also the OP No. 1 is still ready and willing to give effect of the service connection at the premises of the complainant provided that no obstruction at the site is created. It is also submitted that in spite of having full knowledge about the objection raised by OP Nos. 2 to 5 the complainant intentionally and willfully has filed this instant case against the OP No. 1 with a view of harass the OP No. 1 and as such the instant case is liable to be dismissed with a position in favour of the OP No. 1.
Points of consideration
On the basis of the pleadings of the parties this District Commission is going to adopt the following points for the purpose of proper and complete adjudication of this complaint case and also for the interest of arriving at just and proper decision in this complaint case :-
- Is this case maintainable in its present form and in the eye of law?
- Has this District Commission jurisdiction to try this case?
- Is the complainant a consumer under the OPs?
- Whether there is any cause of action for filing this case or not?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get the direction in the matter of installation of electric pole and giving electric connection at the premises of complainant or not ?
- To what other relief or reliefs the complainant is entitled to get in this case?
Evidence on record
The complainant in order to prove this case has filed evidence on affidavit and the OP No. 1 has filed interrogatories against the said evidence on affidavit and the complainant side has given reply to such interrogatories. On the other hand the OP No. 1 has also filed evidence on affidavit to disprove the case of complainant and against the said evidence on affidavit the complainant side has filed interrogatories and the OP No. 1 has submitted reply against such interrogatories.
Argument highlighted by both parties
At the stage of argument Ld. Advocates of complainant side and OP No. 1 have filed their interrogatories and in addition to that both the complainant and OP No. 1 also have highlighted their verbal argument .
Decision with reason
The first 4(four) issues are related with the questions of maintainability, jurisdiction, cause of action and whether the complainant is a consumer under the OPs or not? These 4(four) points of consideration are vital issues and the questions involved in these points of consideration are interlinked and or interconnected with one another. For that reason and also for the interest of convenience of discussion these 4 (four) points of consideration are clubbed together and taken up for discussion jointly.
The first point of consideration is related with the question of maintainability. In this regard, it is important to note that the OP No. 1 have not filed any separate application challenging the maintainability of this case but in the W/V the OP No. 1 has pointed out that this case is not maintainable. But fact remains that this District Commission after going through the material of this case record finds that the complainant on 16.12.2015 submitted quotation amount as per quotation of the OP No. 1. It is also revealed that in view of the application submitted by the complainant for giving effect electric connection the men and agents of OP No. 1 inspected the premises of complainant and thereafter submitted quotation. When the quotation amount has been submitted and / or deposited, it is hard and fast duty of the OP No. 1 to install electric connection at the premises of complainant. This matter is clearly depicting that this complaint case is maintainable in its present form and in the eye of law and the complainant is a consumer under the OP No. 1.
Over the issue of jurisdiction this District Commission finds that the complainant is a resident of Village Uttrarpirpur under P.S. Shyampur, Dist. Howrah. OP No. 1 has been carrying on their business at Uluberia under P.S. Howrah. Moreover, the OP Nos. 2 to 5 are also the residence of Village Uttarpirpur, P.S. Shyampur, Dist. Howrah.
Thus, it is crystal clear that this District Commission has territorial jurisdiction to try this case. Moreover, the claim of the complainant is far below than the amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- and so this District Commission has its pecuniary jurisdiction to try this case. Moreover, as per material of this case record the case of action arose on 16.12.2015 and it has been continued upto 12.02.2018 and so it is crystal clear that the complainant has cause of action for filing this case.
A cumulative circumstances of the above noted discussion goes to show that the complainant has proved this case in respect of the above noted 4 (four) points of consideration and so the above noted 4 (four) points of considerations are in favour of the complainant side.
The points of consideration No. 4 is related with the question whether the complainant is entitled to get direction upon the OP No. 1 in the matter of erection of electric poles and installation of the electric meter at the residence of the complainant and to what other relief or reliefs the complainant is entitled to get in this case of the OP. For the purpose of arriving at just and proper decision in respect of the above noted issues this district after going through the material of this case record finds that the OP No. 1 after deposit of the quotation amount issued the Work Order on 23.12.2025 and engaged contractors State Electrical Company in the matter of discharging the work of erection of poles and installation of the electric connection at the residence of the complainant. It is also revealed from the W/V submitted by the OP No. 1 it becomes clear that the OP No. 1 also willing and ready to give effect of the service connection at the premises of the complainant. When the OP No. 1 is ready and willing to provide service connection at the house of the complainant, this District Commission finds that there is no unfair trade practice or deficiency of service or negligence on the part of the OP No. 1. However, in spite of willingness and readiness of OP No. 1 the complainant side has not yet receive / obtain the electric connection from OP No. 1 at his residence. So, OP No. 1 is to be directed to give electric connection at the residence of the complainant from the existing electric pole / or in around about way and if required by taking police help.
In the light of the observation made above the points of consideration Nos. 4 & 5 are decided in favour of the complainant side.
In the result it is accordingly,
ORDERED
That this complaint case being No. 163/2018 be and the same is allowed on contest against OP No. 1 and it is decided ex-parte against OP Nos. 2 to 5 . It is held that the complainant is entitled to get electric connection at his residence and so the OP No. 1 is directed to give effect of the said electric connection at the residence of the complainant either from the nearest electric pole or in around about way by taking police help within 45 days from the date of passing of this order .
The OP Nos. 2 to 5 are hereby restrained from creating any obstruction in the matter of giving effect of the electric connection at the house of the complainant, failing which the complainant is given liberty to execute this award as per law.
The parties of this case are entitled to get a free copy of this judgment / final order.
Let this judgment / final order be uploaded in the official website of this District Commission as early as possible.
Dictated & corrected by me
President
