DATE OF FILING : 06.01.2016.
DATE OF S/R : 19.02.2016.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 23.02.2017.
Sri Lakshmikanta Samanta,
son of Rabin Samanta,
of Dafarpur Panchanantala, Paruipara,
P.O. & P.S. Domjur, District Howrah,
PIN 711 405……….….…. .…………………………………………… COMPLAINANT.
- The A.E. & Station Manager,
Domjur CCC, WBSEDCL,
Domjur Customer Care Center,
Village and P.O. & P.S. Domjur,
Howrah 711 405.
- Sri Aloke Parui,
son of Asit Parui,
at Dafarpur Panchanantala, P.O. & P.S. Domjur,
Howrah 711 405.…………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
Hon’ble President : Shri B. D. Nanda, M.A. ( double ), L.L.M., WBHJS.
Hon’ble Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
Hon’ble Member : Shri A.K. Pathak.
F I N A L O R D E R
- This is an application U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 filed by the petitioner, Sri Lakshmikanta Samanta against A.E. & Station Manager, Domjur CCC and one Aloke Parui praying for a direction on the o.p. no. 1, A.E. & Station Manager, WBSEDCL, Domjur, to supply electric connection by installing the electric meter at the meter board of the petitioner with the help of police authority and direct the o.p. no. 2 not to obstreuct the o.p. no. 1 installing the electric connection and also direct the o.p. no. 2 to pay compensation amounting to Rs. 90,000/- for physical and mental harassment and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation costs.
- The case of the petitioners is that he is absolute owner and possessor in respect of dag no. 1578 in L.R. Khatina no. 3182 of Mouza Dafarpur, P.S. Domjur, District Howrah, measuring 2 satak with structure by virtue of deed of gift of 2014. The o.p. no. 2 had no right, title and interest and possession in respect of aforesaid dag. The petitioner prayed for domestic electric connection and paid requisite charges needed for getting new electric connection. The o.p. no. 1 informed him by notice dated 12.9.2015 that the o.p. no. 1 failed to supply electric connection in his name as objection raised by o.p. no. 2. In spite of several requests by the petitioner the o.p. no. 1 did not install electric meter and rather remained silent and avoiding to do the same and thus finding no other alternative the petitioner filed this case.
- The o.ps., WBSEDCL, contested the case by filing a written version denying the allegations made against him and submitted that the petitioner has no cause of action to file the case as the case is not maintainable and it is a private dispute between the petitioner and o.p. no. 2 and the o.p. no. 1 is unnecessarily dragged here for creating jurisdiction of the Forum. The o.p. no. 1 further submitted that the petitioner has not approached the Forum in clean hands and is not entitled to the relief as prayed for. He again submitted that he received the application of petitioner, Lakshmikanta Samanta, c/o Kalpana Samanta of Dafarpur of Paruipara and the petitioner applied for new connection at his premises and so quotation issued on 11.5.2015. The answering o.p. company being a creature of statute proceeded and deputed his men to inspect the premises for new connection but found that consumer no. I/D no. 135009571 is already there in the premises and the petitioner has been consuming electricity from the said meter. The petitioner wants to split the load which is not permissible under the provision of the Electricity Act as the same would bring loss to the Government Exchequer. Accordingly letter dated 02.6.2015 was issued stating that one meter already existed therein. The o.p. no. 1 got a reply from the petitioner stating that he needs a separate meter because the existing one is not in the name of the complainant. Receiving the letter the o.p. no. 1 then deputed their technical staff for inspection but the same could not be done as Krishnapada Parui opposed the same and did not allow the men of o.p. no. 1 to enter the premises. Accordingly the o.p. no. 1 issued another letter on 04.8.2015 informing the petitioner that there is way leave problem against new connection and on 13.8.2015 one Aloke Parui of Domjur submitted a written objection before the o.p. no. 1 against drawing of service line to the premises of this petitioner. Accordingly petitioner was requested to solve the problem but instead of doing the same he filed this case. Thus the case be dismissed.
- The o.p. no. 2, Aloke Parui, contested the case by filing a separate written version denying the allegations made against him stating that the case is neither maintainable in fact nor in law and is based on totally false and fabricated facts. He further submitted that in the year 1992 and most specifically on 14.02.1992 the mother of the petitioner, Kalpana Samanta, executed deed of sale in favour of Manoj Kumar Adhikari by registered sale deed in respect of the self same property and also on 14.02.1992 one Durga Rani Pauri executed a separate sale deed in favour of Manoj Kumar Adhikari. Thus the property originally belonged to Balai Chandra Parui and from whom his widow Durga Rani Parui and Kalapana Samanta inherited into the same by way of law and of inheritance. Suppressing all material facts the petitioner filed this case claiming himself as absolute owner of the property and so the petitioner be directed to pay compensation to o.p. no. 2 for causing harassment and the case be dismissed.
- Upon pleadings of parties the following points arose for determination :
- Is the case maintainable in its present form ?
- Whether the petitioner has any cause of action to file the case ?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps., WBSEDCL Ltd. ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
- All the issues are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity for discussion and to skip off reiteration. In support of his case the petitioner filed affidavit as well as document being his deposit of the service connection charge and security deposit etc. and he also filed a letter written by Mr. K. Mondal, Assistance Engineer & Station Manager, Domjur CCC addressing this petitioner in the above address Dafarpur Paruipar, Domjur, with phone no. 9903657577 and the same proving the fact that the petitioner, Lakshmikanta Samanta has been residing in the said premises either as an owner or as a tenant or as an occupier and the petitioner also filed one khatian no. 3182, dag no. 1578 being bastu land standing in the name of Lakshmikanta Samanta, son of Rabin Samanta, also proving that he is in possession of the said bastu land. Be that as it may it is clear before this Forum that the petitioner is in possession of the property wherein he wants electric connection and he has no electric connection in his name. This Forum is not to decide here the ownership of property and direct the o.p. no. 1 to supply electric connection to the petitioner whether he is owner of the property or occupier of the property by virtue of being a tenant or by forcibly occupying the property. Our Supreme Court as well as our High Court opined that an unauthorized occupier is entitled to electricity unless and until he is evicted by process of law.
- Our Supreme Court in the case of Chandra Khamura vs. Nayan Mallick and others opined that the distribution company is to supply electricity to the applicant as the distribution licensee had a duty to the applicant whether he is owner or occupier. Our High Court in the case Abhimunya Majumdar, Superintendent Engineer and another categorically opined that a person who is in settled position of a property whether he is a trespasser or unauthorized encroacher, squatter of any premises yet he can apply for fresh electric connection without consent of the owner and is entitled to get electricity and enjoy the same until he is evicted by due process of law.
In view of above decision of our Apex Court as well as Calcutta High Court this Forum has no other alternative but to direct the o.p. no. 1 to install the electric connection in the premises of the petitioner until evicted from the premises with due course of law.
In the result, the application succeeds.
Court fee paid is correct.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. No.4 of 2016 be and the same is allowed on contest without costs against the O.P. no. 1.
The O.P. no. 1 is directed to render fresh electric connection in the occupied premises of the petitioner by installing new electric meter within 30 days from the date of this order.
No order is passed as to compensation as deficiency is not established.
The complainant is at liberty to put the final order into execution after expiry of the appeal period.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, free of costs.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( B. D. Nanda )
President, C.D.R.F., Howrah.
