J U D G E M E N T
Mr. Sankar Kumar Ghosh, Hon’ble President ─ This consumer complaint under section 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 has been filed by the complainant Kumari Bharati Das against the OPs named above alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs.
Complainant’s case, in brief, is as follows: - That complainant is a unmarried lady and she was a monthly premises tenant under the deceased landlord viz. Ramendra Sundar Ray @ Rs.70/- per month and after the demise of Ramendra Sundar Ray the OP No. 3 become the landlord of the complainant and at present complainant is paying Rs.90/- per month as rent excluding electricity charges which is payable according to English Calender Month to the landlord of the said property.
Complainant also stated that as complainant is a unmarried lady and as there is no other person in her family so for her livelihood carrying a grocery business at the aforesaid property.
Complainant further stated that she used to pay monthly rent regularly to the landlord against which landlord used to issue rent receipts to the complainant but since last few years OP No. 3 stopped to issue rent receipt in favour of the complainant and as such, under compulsion complainant sent rent through money orders to OP No. 3, which were also accepted. But, with an malafide intention OP No. 3 filed an eviction suit being No. 1035 of 2015 before the Ld. 2nd Civil Judge (Jr. Div) at Howrah against the complainant without serving any notice as well as without impleading other necessary parties and upon getting summons complainant appeared and contesting the said suit.
Complainant also stated that OP No. 3 including his family members are notorious and their sole intention is to evict the complainant from the tenanted property and as such, on different ways they are making disturbances and obstructions in the matter of peaceful enjoyment of the tenanted property by the complainant and in order to fulfill their evil intention OP No. 3 is creating disturbances to run the said grocery business of complainant and as a result of which complainant is facing tremendous problem.
Complainant further stated that there is no electric connection in the name of the complainant at the scheduled mentioned tenanted property and as such, complainant applied for an electric connection in her name on 22/02/2018 by making requisite charges and upon acceptance of the same OP No. 2 duly issued an offer letter in favour of the complainant wherein they stated that they will effect the electricity connection in favour of the complainant and accordingly they came for effecting the electricity connection but on account of objection raised by OP No. 3 they were unable to effect electricity connection in favour of the complainant.
Complainant further stated that OP No. 2 in collusion and connivance with OP No. 3 avoiding to effect the electricity connection in the name of the complainant and after refusal complainant contacted with the office of the OP No. 2 and requested the OP No. 2 to effect the electricity connection in the name of the complainant at the aforesaid possessed portion of the property but they did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant rather they informed the complainant that under any circumstances they are unable to supply the electricity connection as there was an objection on the part of the OP No. 3.
Complainant further alleged that in order to avoid their statutory obligation, OP No. 2 in collusion and in connivance with other OPs playing a foul game on the ground that having an objection of OP No. 3 for installation of electric meter in the name of the complainant.
Under such compelling circumstances and finding no other alternative way complainant filed this case before this Commission praying for direction upon OP No. 2 to install electric meter either at the scheduled mentioned property upon existing meter board room or at the possessed portion of the complainant and also direction upon OP No. 3 not to obstruct in any way for installing the electric meter and also direction upon OP/OPs to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) for mental and physical harassment and to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) as litigation cost.
OP Nos. 1, 2 & 3 have contested the case by filing W/V separately denying all material allegations and contented inter alia that: -
OP Nos. 1 & 2 alleged that complainant has got no cause of action or right to sue as alleged because of suppression of fact. The OP Nos. 1 & 2 also stated that complainant is not at all a consumer under the OP Nos. 1 & 2. Complainant applied for new electric connection at the office of the OP No. 2 for installation of new electric meter at the grocery shop at Vill. & P.O. Naul, Howrah and as per physical inspection on 02/11/2018 at the premises of the complainant by the technical staff, it has been reported that the complainant is not the lawful occupier of the premises. Ramendra Sundar Ray is the owner of the premises and son of Ramendra Sundar Ray viz. Sri Biswajit Roy, OP No. 3 raised strong objection against the new electric connection at the premises in question on the ground that the complainant is not the lawful tenant of the premises in question. So, there is serious dispute with regard to possession and as per Procedure A of the WBSEDCL no way leave permission has been submitted by the complainant for which the connection was not effected in the premises of the complainant. Further, OP Nos. 1 & 2 stated that OP Nos. 1 & 2 are creature of statute and they have no intention to withhold the electric connection of any of its intending consumer and in the instant case OP No. 2 is still ready and willing to effect electric service connection at the tenanted premises of the complainant provided there is no objection at site and proper way-leave is submitted by the complainant at the time of effecting such electric connection.
OP Nos. 1 & 2 further alleged that in spite of objection raised by OP No. 3 complainant intentionally and willfully filed the instant case against OP Nos. 1 & 2 with a view to harass OP Nos. 1 & 2 and thus, the instant case is liable to be dismissed with compensation in favour of the OP Nos. 1 & 2 for causing such unnecessary harassment.
OP No. 3 in his W/V alleged that the instant case is not maintainable either in law or in facts and complainant has no right to file the instant case against OP No. 3.
OP No. 3 further stated that the scheduled property originally belonged to his father Ramendra Sundar Roy and said Ramendra Sundar Roy transferred the schedule property/premises to OP No. 3 by a Registered Deed of Gift dated 14/07/2006 and delivered possession thereof. Ramendra Sundar Roy inducted one Dulal Das as tenant in respect of the schedule premises and Dulal Das died on 20/11/2013 being issueless leaving behind his only wife Tapasi Das and said Tapasi Das did not want to carry any business in the said premises and surrendered right, inherited by her on 11/06/2014 and delivered possession. OP No. 3 kept the premises under lock and key after the key handed over by said Tapasi Das to him and complainant is the sister of Dulal Das and sister-in-law (nanad) of Tapasi Das and mother of Dulal Das predeceased him. So, complainant has no right, title, interest or any claim in the schedule premises.
OP No. 3 further alleged that after demise of Dulal Das being instigated by one Bablu Das and some others of Daspara, Damodarpur one illegal salish was held on 4th Agrahayan 1420 B.S. and complainant was empowered to take possession of the schedule premises and complainant forcibly by unlocking entered into the schedule premises on 17/07/2014 and accordingly OP No. 3 lodged a diary on 17/07/2014 before the concerned P.S. and OP No. 3 submitted a written complaint on 21/09/2014 to the concerned P.S. but to no effect. Complainant constantly threatened OP No. 3 and OP No. 3 filed a case filed U/s 107 Cr.p.c. but yielded no result and complainant has been occupying the schedule premises as racked trespassers forcibly. OP No. 3 filed a T.S. before Ld. 2nd Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) at Uluberia for Declaratioin and Khass Possession and Injunction against the complainant being T.S. No. 1035/2015 and Ld. Court was pleased to pass an order on 07/12/2015 that the complainant is restrained from changing the nature and character of the schedule property. Subsequently, after the injunction petition hearing Ld. Court has allowed injunction petition on contest and ordered on 28/04/2016 that “the parties are directed to maintain status quo in regard to the nature, character and possession in respect of the schedule premises and thus the injunction petition is disposed of on consent” and presently that T.S. 1035/2015 is running in DW stages (evidence). In the mean time, complainant applied for new electric connection in respect of schedule premises by suppressing the facts to WBSEDCL, Bagnan-II CCC and OP No. 3 filed written objection against the application for meter connection dated 13/06/2018 of complainant. Under such circumstances, OP No. 3 has prayed for dismissal of the instant case with heavy cost against the complainant.
POINTS FOR DECISION
- Whether the complainant is the consumer to the OPs or not?
- 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 the OP No. 1 & 2 or there is any deficiency of service on the part of the OP No. 1 & 2.
- Whether OP No. 3 raised strong legal objection in getting domestic electric meter by complainant?
- Is the complainant entitled to get relief/reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASON
On close scrutiny from the materials on record, it reveals that the complainant is a consumer under Section 2(i)(d)(i)(ii) of the C.P.Act, 1986 to the OPs.
Complainant appears to be the resident of district Howrah whereas OPs are also residing or having their offices within the district of Howrah. Considering the nature of the case and prayers of the complainant it straightway gives clear signal that pecuniary value of the case is within Rs.20,00,000/- i.e. within the limit of this Commission (formerly Forum). So, this Commission (formerly Forum) has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try this case.
The pointed allegation of the complainant is that she being a lawful tenant is entitled to get separate electricity meter in her name in the above said premises.
The specific case of OP No. 1 & 2 is that the instant dispute has cropped up in between complainant and OP No. 3 and OP No. 1 & 2 have no nexus in connection with that dispute of complainant and OP No. 3. Further, OP No. 1 & OP No. 2 is a statutory body and according to law they are ready to act lawfully.
OP No. 3 being the landlord vehemently opposed the allegations of complainant and has categorically stated that complainant is not a premises tenant nor she is the absolute owner nor occupier of aforesaid property or complainant in the year 2015 used to pay rent and as such, complainant is a lawful tenant and she is not entitled to get separate electric connection in her name in the said property in question.
It may be noted that complainant filed evidence on affidavit wherefrom it appears that complainant has made a replica of the contents of the petition of complaint. On the other hand, OP Nos. 1 & 2 have filed evidence on affidavit mentioning categorically the version as they have incorporated in his W/V.
Similarly, OP No. 3 in his evidence has also highlighted the contents of his W/V.
It may be noted that against the evidence of complainant OP Nos. 1 & 2 filed questionnaire and OP No. 3 also filed questionnaire. Thereafter, complainant filed affidavit in reply against the questionnaire of OP Nos. 1 & 2 and also filed affidavit in reply against the questionnaire of OP No. 3. Further, it may be noted that complainant and OP No. 3 have filed BNA.
We have meticulously gone through the entire materials on record. It may be pointed out that Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is the main provision casting an obligation upon every distribution licensee to give supply electricity to the premises when the application by the owner or occupier of such premises is made and Sub-section (I) of Section 43 of the said Act enjoyance upon the distribution licensee to give such supply of electricity to the owner or occupier of such premises, as the case may be within one month after receipt of the application requiring such supply. Therefore, the only point that has to be looked into whether the complainant has tenancy right or she is an occupant of the premises in question or not.
In view of the foregoing discussion and considering the materials on record, we have to point out or we have to find out whether the complainant has the tenancy right or she is occupant of the premises in question or not.
On a close scrutiny of the contents of petition of complaint as well as contents of W/V filed by OP Nos. 1 & 2 it is palpably clear that complainant applied for new electric connection at the office of OP No. 2 for installation of new electric meter at the concerned grocery shop of Vill. & P.O. Naul, Howrah. So, this part of factum is no doubt is undisputed.
However, OP No. 2 in their W/V has categorically stated that as per physical inspection on 02/11/2018 at the premises of complainant by the technical staff of WBSEDCL department, it has been reported that complainant is not a lawful occupier of the premises and OP No. 3 raised strong objection against new electric connection at the case premises in question on the ground that complainant is not a lawful tenant of the premises in question.
It may be noted that even an unlawful occupant of any particular premises in question is entitled to have electricity until and unless he/she is being evicted therefrom lawfully.
OP No. 3 tried to highlight that in T.S. No. 1035/2015 is pending before the Ld. 2nd Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) at Uluberia and he also highlighted mentioning some orders of the said Ld. 2nd Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) at Uluberia but from the end of OP No. 3 it has not come within the forecorners of this record that complainant has been totally evicted from the premises in question.
At present, right to electricity is a constitutional right under the ambit of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. We may recall a reported decision of Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta in 2011(2)CHN768 (Abhimanyu Mazumdar-Vs-Superintending Engineer and Another) that is a full bench decision of Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta wherein it is observed that a person in settled position of property is free to apply for supply of electricity without consent of the owner and is entitled to get electricity and enjoy the same until he/she is evicted by due process of law.
There is, therefore, it is proved beyond doubt that still complainant is possessing premises in question. It is not our look out at this stage whether she is lawfully occupying the premises in question or unlawfully occupying the same, only we are to look out whether she is in possession in the premises in question and on that score we are getting our answer that still complainant is in possession of the premises in question.
We should keep in mind that the C. P. 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 facts and circumstances of the case and materials on record we are constrained to hold that complainant has succeeded to prove her case.
Hence, it is,
O R D E R E D
That the instant Complain Case being No. 352 of 2018 be and the same is allowed on contest against OP No. 1, 2 & 3 with costs.
OP Nos. 1 & 2 are directed to install the electricity meter/connection to the premises in question of the complainant within 45(forty five) days from the date of this order.
OP No. 3 are hereby restrained from raising any obstruction/objection at the time of giving electric connection in the said premises of complainant when men of OP Nos. 1 & 2 will work for new electric connection.
Superintendant of Police (Rural), Howrah is hereby categorically directed for rendering police assistant at the time of effecting new electric meter/connection in the premises of complainant in question without fail. The complainant will bear the cost of such police assistance.
Let free copies of this order be given to the parties free of cost.
Dictated & Corrected by me
(Mr. Sankar Kumar Ghosh)
President, DCDRC, Howrah
