West Bengal

Dakshin Dinajpur

CC/49/2021

Sri Mrityunjoy Sutradhar, S/O- Jiban Krishna Sutradhar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Assistant Engineer, W.B.S.E.D.C.L. , Kumarganj Customer Care Centre - Opp.Party(s)

Samit Bhowmick

26 Sep 2023

ORDER

The instant case has been initiated by the complainant U/S – 35 of Consumer Protection Act,2019 against the Opposite Parties claiming Compensation of Rs.50,000/- + Litigation Cost of Rs. 10,000/- .Total = Rs.60,000/- + Interest.

The fact of the case, in brief, is that complainant has applied for domestic service connection of electricity in his own purchased properties and the opposite party no.1 has issued the quotation amount for the purpose of effecting the service connection in the name of the complainant and the complainant duly deposited the same but the Opposite Party No.1 has not provide the said service connection and all the said activities done within the jurisdiction of this Ld. Commission and hence this Ld. Forum has jurisdiction to try and entertain this case. The properties is of plot no. Sabek 242 and L.R. 324 of Mouza Balupara, J.L. No. 099, comprising an area of 0.225 acres previously belonged to Sudhir Chandra Saha and Khitish Chandra Sarkar having equal share and they used to possess the same with demarcation. The husband of the Opposite Party No.2 namely Mahadev Saha got an area of 22^1/2 decimal of land from his father Sudhir Chandra Saha by way of gift deed no. 4049 dated 25/09/1991 and recorded the same in Khatian no. 764 out of which said Mahadev Saha transferred and area of 12 decimal of land in favour of his wife namely Sipra Saha i.e. the Opposite Party No.2 of this case by way of registered deed no. 2671 dated 29/05/2015. The said Mahadev Saha again by way of registered sale deed vide no. 88 for the year of 2019 transferred an area of 06 decimal of land in the said plot in favour of the Complainant  Mrityunjoy Saha with specific demarcation and with specific Boundaries. The Opposite Party No.2 and her husband jointly transferred an area of 05 decimal of land in favour of the Goutam Saha who has been carrying on his construction work over the said 05 decimal of properties. The complainant got recorded his purchased properties in  his name also in the present L.R. Khatian No. 1056 of Mouza Balupara. The complainant is in possession of his purchased landed properties. The complainant after mutation of his name duly applies for electric connection (domestic) in his own purchased and possessed properties. As per the application the opposite party has already given the Quotation for deposit of the amounts for the purpose of obtaining of the said service connection in the name of the complainant vide Application NO. 4002447991 Quotation date 23/10/2019 and Quotation date 21/01/2020. Accordingly the complainant being the consumer of the opposite party No.1 duly deposited the full Quotation amount of Rs. 848/- ( Rupees eight hundred forty eight) in favour of the opposite party on 23/10/2019 vide Transaction ID RUR28127365447 and Consumer Id 402397429 in connection with the said application no. of the complainant for getting the electricity service connection in his own properties. But after passing considerable period, the O.P did not provide the service connection and as such the complainant is facing tremendous hardship and have to spent his days and nights without electricity with his family members. The opposite party No.1 has not provided the service connection on the ground that one suit has been instituted by one Shipra Sarkar and her husband Mahadev Saha against Complainant and there is injunction order has been passed by Ld. Civil Judge ( Senior Division), vide case No- 62/2020 (Partition Suit) the opposite party intimated the complainant the said matter orally. The real fact is that the properties of plot no. Sabek 242 and L.R. 324 of Mouza Balupara, J.L. No. 099, comprising an area of 0.225 acres previously belonged to Sudhir Chandra Saha and Khitish Chandra Sarkar having equal share and they used to possess the same with demarcation. Mahadev Saha got an area of 22^1/2 decimal of land from his Father Sudhir Chandra Saha by way of gift deed no. 4049 dated 25/09/1991 and recorded the same in Khatian no. 764 out of which said Mahadev Saha transferred an area of 12 decimal of land in favour of his wife namely Sipra Saha by way of registered deed no. 2671 dated 29/05/2015. The said Mahadev Saha again by way of registered sale deed vide no. 88 for the year of 2019 transferred an area of 06 decimal of land in the said plot in favour of the complainant Mrityunjoy Saha with specific demarcation and with specific Boundaries. The said Mahadev Saha and Shipra Saha jointly transferred an area of 05 decimal  of land in favour of the Goutam Saha who has been carrying on his construction work over the said 05 decimal of properties and the said persons have not raised any objection against said Goutam Saha. Since transfer of the land in favour of the complainant Shipra Saha and her husband are harassing the complainant so that he cannot peacefully enjoy his purchased properties and filed so many false complaint against the complainant before the Police station and not only that they have filed partition suit vide no. 62/2020 before the Ld. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Balurghat and also prayed for injunction against the complainant so that the complainant cannot make his house properties over his purchased land. The Ld. Civil Judge, Senior Division, by the order of ad-interim injunction directing the complainant not to make any construction work beyond his purchased land. The said Shipra Saha and her husband by showing the said order filed so many application before the Local Police Station by misleading the order of the Ld. Court and stated that there is order of injunction against the complainant and hence he is not entitled to make any construction over his purchased area. Apart from the above the said persons also filed application before the Local Gram Panchayat so that the Panchayat Authority cannot sanction the building plan in favour of the complainant and also filed application before the WBSEDCL, Kumarganj Circle for not to provide/ effect the Electric connection in the possessed and purchased land of the complainant. By this way the said persons twisting the said order filed complaints against the complainant. For the said reason the complainant so many times and on several occasion went to the office of the opposite party No.1 and also requested the authority that the authority is not party to the Civil Suit and there is no such order restraining the authority from effecting the service connection in the property of the complainant but the authority did not take any steps towards the matter. On 08/07/2021 the complainant filed application before the opposite party No.1 under the provision of RTI seeking the documents and prayer which said Shipra Saha made against the complainant but the authority still today has not provided the same to the complainant. After the same the authority on 22/06/2021 duly installed the Pole beside the purchased land of the complainant but did not provided the service connection in the purchased landed properties and house properties therein and for the said reason the complainant is living in the said property in dark in the night. The wife of the complainant was pregnant and has given birth of child and the complainant is facing problem with the said new born baby without having any electricity The electricity is one of the essential service and the complainant is the bona-fide owner as well as the occupier and possessor of his purchased landed properties and hence the complainant after depositing the Quotation amount became the consumer of the opposite party and hence the complainant is entitled to get the service connection in the purchased property of the complainant  and the opposite party No.1 cannot deny . The Opposite Party No.1 not only harass the plaintiff but also deprived the Complainant  from his rights which the complainant is legally entitled to get. For the said reason the complainant duly collected the information slip from the court of law as whether the electricity department is the party of the suit and is there any injunction order against the authority and the complainant then went to the officer of the opposite party No.1 and the opposite party declined to receive any type of application from the complainant and after repeated visit to the opposite party the complainant then send the application through registered post on 13/08/2021 to the opposite party No.1 for effecting service connection in the purchased and possessed land of the complainant with the information slip and other documents of the complainant but even after laps of one months the opposite party did not provide the service connection to the complainant  and kept mum which is gross negligence on the part of the service provider opposite party No.1 in performing his duties towards the consumer complainant. There is no specific injunction Order against the complainant and the Opposite Party No.1 for taking the service connection and also providing the service connection and hence there is no bar to give service connection in favour of the complainant. A Civil Court has no Jurisdiction to pass an injunction order against W.B.S.E.D.C.L. as per the provision of the Electricity Act 2003 and Electricity Act provides for supply service connection to any occupier irrespective his ownership. The complainant is bona-fide owner and occupier as well as purchaser and recorded owner of his properties and the complainant has submitted all documents for the purpose of obtaining the service connection. Considering and verifying the all relevant document of ownership and possession of the complainant, the Opposite Party No.1 / Assistant Engineer, Kumarganj Customer Care Centre has issued the Quotation to the complainant and also accepted all Quotation fees and gave assurance to the complainant for providing service connection. But the Opposite Party No.1 did not give connection on the some vague ground which is not acceptable at all. The Opposite Party No.1 without any reasonable ground is not providing service connection to the complainant arbitrarily and whimsically and violating the rights of a consumer.  Hence the instant case praying for relief as prayed for.

 

 Notice was duly served upon the opposite Party No.1and after receiving the notice, the Opposite Party No.1 appeared before this Commission and filed his written version. During the pendency of the case, Opposite Party No.2 was added as party and notice was sent to him. Subsequently, the Opposite Party No.2 appeared before this Commission but failed to file written version in time so, the case is proceeded ex parte against her.

 

By filing written version the Opposite Party No.1, has submitted that the  complainant filed an  application for getting new connection before the Opposite Party No.1 on 23.10.19 and after processing the application Kumarganj C.C.C issued work order vide no- 411555 dated 28.11.19 and also issued Meter vide no.- 880750311against the said work order dt. 28.11.19. Accordingly to the rules and regulation, the applicant must provide the way leave from which the service connection should effect. But as and when the persons of the contractor went for giving service connection the one Smt Shipra Saha raised strong objection to install pole and line by claiming that land belonged to her. She restrained the persons of the worker, then and then it was informed to the complainant but the complainant could not mitigate the problem and because of the way leave problem the workers could not effect the connection and returned the meter. Smt. Shipra Saha gave an objection letter before the Kumarganj C.C.C that a land dispute is going on between shipra Saha and Mrityunjay Sarkar and a Civil Suit has been filed by her against the Complainant  vide civil Suit No- O.C. 62/2020 and she will not allow to erect electric pole or electric wire to be hanged over her property. The matter was informed to the applicant and advised him to mitigate the problem but without solving the problem he again communicated to the Opposite Party No.1 and the Opposite Party No.1 again re attempted to effect the new service connection by way of issuing a purchase order vide no- 5300380989 dated 22.06.21, one number of meter and electric PCC pole. After getting the work order the vendor M/S Guja Enterprise erected one number of 8 meter PCC pole and after erecting, the worker faced a huge opposition on the said disputed premises from Shipra Saha and they could not effect the new service connection and apart from giving physical objection she gave an written objection dt 22.06.21 and there after the Opposite Party No.1 also received an advocates letter from the Ld. Advocate Debraj Chakraborty. The attempt of effecting previous service connection was failed by the Opposite Party No.1 and it was communicated verbally to the complainant about the nature of objection i.e way leave problem and requested the complainant to resolve the way leave problem as early as possible but he failed and then also the worker tried 2/3 times to effect the service connection and it was also failed. The ongoing problem is in between Mrityunjay Saha and Shipra Saha there is no negligence on the part of the Opposite Party No.1 they tried to carry out the work order. According to rules the applicant should give way leave to effect the service connection. Shipra Saha should made party in this case. There is no question of any negligence or deficiency in service by the Opposite Party No.1 and as he is not related with the matter & he acted by following the rules. The petitioner should make Shipra Saha as a party in this case, so the case should be dismissed with cost.

 

           To prove his case, the complainants have filed photo copies of -

 

(i)  Regd. Sale Deed vide no.88 for the year in the name of the Complainant

(ii)  L.R.Khatian no.1065 of mouza Balupara, J.L . No.99 of the Complainant

(iii)  Quotation supplied by the O.P.No.1 dated 23.10.2019

(iv) Receipt dated 23.10.2019 showing the deposit of  Quotation amount.

(v)  Application of RTI dated 08.07.2021

(vi)  Application with postal receipt dated 13.08.2021

(vii)  Information Slip and order Ld. Court in Partition Suit 62 / 2020

 

           On the other hand, the Opposite Parties No.1&2 have failed to file any single document in support of their defense -

 

            In view of the above mentioned facts, the following points are cropped up for consideration-  

 

 

       POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION

 

     1.  Whether the Complainant is a consumer to the Opposite Parties?

2.  Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite parties?

3.  Whether the Complainants are entitled to get any relief/reliefs as prayed for? 

 

                                           DECISION WITH REASON

 

           We have heard argument by Ld. Advocates for the Complainant and the Opposite Party No.1 at length. We have also gone through the evidence on affidavit, cross examinations and written argument filed by Complainant and Opposite Party No.1. Perused the documents filed by the Complainants..  

            At the time of argument Ld. Advocate for the Complainant narrated the fact of the case as mentioned in the plaint. He further submitted that there is no injunction order over the suit property. The injunction order has been passed over the other properties except the suit property. There is negligence and  deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1. The Complainant has successfully proved his case. So, the Complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for.

             On the other hand, Ld. Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1 also narrated his defense case as mentioned in the written version. Ld. Advocates for the Opposite Party No.1 further submitted that There is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1. So, the Complainant is not entitled to get relief as prayed for and the case is liable to be dismissed.        

             Now, let us discuss all the points one by one. 

 

Point No. 1     

  

            It is admitted that on the basis on a petition of the Complainant  praying for electric connection, a quotation has been supplied by the Opposite Party No.1 and the Complainant has paid the said quotation amount. In such circumstances, we opine that the Complainant is a consumer under the Opposite Party No.1 as per section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

         Accordingly, this point is decided in favour of the Complainant.  

 

Point Nos. 2 & 3

 

          Both these points are taken up together for discussion for the sake of convenience and brevity.  

         Admittedly, the Complainant has purchased 0.06 dec. of land within Mouza – Balupara, Khatian no.1065, J.L. no.099 from Mahadev Saha on 07.01.2019 by virtue of registered deed of sale. The said Mahadev Saha is the husband of the Opposite Party No.2.

 

           After purchasing the said land the Complainant mutated his name before B.L.& L.R.O. Thereafter, the Complainant applied for electric connection before the Opposite Party No.1. After receiving application, the Opposite Party No.1 issued quotation. After receiving quotation, the Complainant paid the quotation money amounting to Rs.848/- in favour of the Opposite Party No.1.

 

         Now, it is the allegation of the Complainant that in spite of payment of quotation money, the Opposite Party No.1 did not effect the electric connection over the premises of the Complainant. On the other hand, it is the contention of the Opposite Party No.1 that after payment of quotation money, the Opposite Party No.1 issued work order dated 28.11.2019 and also issued meter vide no. 880750311 against the said work order. But as and when, the persons of the Contractor went for giving service connection, one Shipra Saha / Opposite Party No.2 raised strong objection to install pole and line by claiming that the said land belonged to her. She restrained the persons of the contractor. Then and then, the matter was informed to the Complainant but the Complainant could not mitigate the problem and because of the way leave problem, the workers could not effect the connection and returned the meter. The Opposite Party No.2 also gave an objection letter before the Opposite the Opposite Party No.1 stating that several civil and criminal cases are pending in between the Complainant and Opposite Party No.2 and her husband. There has been an injunction order over the suit property passed by Ld. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Balurghat, Dakshin Dinajpur in civil suit no.62 of 2020. The Opposite Party No.1 has further stated that due to again and again communication of the Complainant, the Opposite Party No.1 re attempted to effect the new service connection by way of issuing a purchase order vide no.5300380989 dated 05.02.2021with one meter and electric PCC pole. Thereafter, the workers of the contractor one number of 8 meter PCC pole and for that the workers of the contractor faced huge opposition on the land of the Complainant by the Opposite Party No.2 so, they could not effect the new service connection. There is no negligence or deficiency in service on the Part of the Opposite Party No.1.

 

           Here, from the above mentioned facts, we opine that electricity is the part and parcel of a human life so, no person can be denied for the said facility while all formalities have been performed by the petitioner. Further, on perusal of the order of the Ld. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Balurghat, Dakshin Dinajpur passed in civil suit no.62 of 2020, it appears that the Defendant / Complainant has been restrained from any construction over the suit property apart from his purchased land ( vide deed no 88 of 2019) .  Here. There is a 8” feet pucca road in the western side of the land of the Complainant. So, no objection of the Opposite Party shall lie if the pole is erected by the side of the road in front of the land of the Complainant. Here, we also do not find any negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1. It is admitted by the Opposite Party No.1 that the workers of the contractor have been able to erect a pole but failed to effect service connection due to strong objection of theOppoaite Party No.2.

 

       In view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances. We opine that the Complainant is entitled to get electric service connection and there is no negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1.

 

         Accordingly, the point no.2 is decided in favour of the Opposite Party No.1 and the point no,3 is decided in favour of the Complainant.

 

    Hence, it is                                   

                                                           O R D E R E D

           

That the Consumer Case No. 49 of 2021 is hereby allowed on contest in part against the Opposite Party No.1 and  dismissed ex parte against the Opposite Party No.2 but without cost.

The Opposite Party No-1 is directed to effect electric connection within thirty (30) days in the premises of the Complainant from the date of passing of this order with the assistance of the Police of kumarganj P.S.

The Inspector-in charge, Kumarganj P.S. is directed to assist the Opposite Party No-1 for effecting electric connection in the premises of the Complainant by providing police personals .The Opposite Party No-1 is further directed to consult with the I/C, Kumarganj P.S. and fix a date for giving effect the electric connection to the complaint. In the event of failure of giving effect the electric connection by the Opposite Party No-1 to the complainant within the prescribed period, the complainant is at liberty to execute the order according to law.

         Let a plain copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.