DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS ,
AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 0144
C.C. CASE NO. 293_ OF ___2013
DATE OF FILING : 18.7.2013 DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT: 15.03.2018
Present : President : Ananta Kumar Kapri
Member(s) : Subrata Sarker
COMPLAINANT : Thakur Singh, son of late Chandrama Singh, K.C Mills, Line No.7, Quarter no.785, 42, Garden Reach Road, Kolkata- 24, P.S Metiabruz.
O.P/O.Ps : 1. The Deputy Manager, CESC Ltd. South West Regional Office, P-18, Taratolla Road, Kolkata – 88, P.S Taratolla.
2. The Factory Manager, Mr Sanjay Kumar Sinha, Kesoram Textile (Cotton ) Mills Ltd. 42, Garden Reach Road, Kolkata – 24, P.S Metiabruz.
3. The Director, Mr. Jayant Sugani, Kesoram Textile (Cotton ) Mills Ltd. 42, Garden Reach Road, Kolkata – 24, P.S Metiabruz.
4. The Managing Director, Manju Shree Khaitan, Industry House, 10, Camac Street, 1st Floor, Kolkata – 17.
___________________________________________________________________
J U D G E M E N T
Sri Ananta Kumar Kapri, President
Like other employees of Kesoram Textile ( Cotton) Mills Ltd. the complainant who is also an employee of that Mill, is not provided electricity free of cost to his quarter by the Mill Authority i.e O.P nos. 2 and 3 and, therefore, the complainant has filed this complaint, praying for issuing a proper direction to the Mill Authority so that the electricity is supplied to his quarter free of cost.
The further case of the complainant is that he also applied to the Deputy Manager, CESC Ltd. i.e O.P-1 for giving electric connection to his quarter, but O.p-1 has turned a deaf ear to his appeal. So, it is also prayed by the complainant herein that a proper direction be issued to O.P-1 so that electric connection may be given to his quarter. Hence, this case.
O.P nos. 2 and 3 have filed written statement, wherein it is contended by them that the complainant was an apprentice/trainee of them and that he has no legal right to occupy any quarter. He forcibly entered into the possession of the quarter, having broken the padlock of the quarter and, therefore, FIR has been lodged by them before the police against the complainant. According to them, no quarter was ever allotted to the complainant, that he is merely a trespasser to that quarter and that, he has no locus standi to get electricity like the other employees of the Mills. So, to them, the complaint should be dismissed in limini.
Written statement has also been filed by the O.P-1 stating therein that the complainant is not a legal occupier of his quarter and that he could not ensure legal occupancy certificate or way leave permission from the concerned authority and, therefore, it has not been possible for them to give electric connection to the quarter of the complainant. According to them, there is no deficiency in service on their part.
Upon the averments of the parties the following points are formulated for consideration.
POINT FOR DETERMINATION
- Is the case maintainable in its present form and in law?
- Is the complainant a consumer?
- Is the complainant entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point nos. 1,2 and 3 :-
Both the parties have adduced evidences and the same are kept in the record.
Already heard the submissions of the Ld. Lawyers ,appearing for both the parties. Perused the complaint, written statement and also the evidences adduced on behalf of the parties.
Considered all these.
A case before the Forum is maintainable when the complainant happens to be a Consumer. If the complainant is not a consumer, no case is maintainable before the Forum. That apart, the “service” for which the complainant has approached the Forum must be one within the definition of “service” as provided under section 2(1)(O) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. If all these requirements are not fulfilled, a complaint cannot be maintainable before the Forum.
Let us see whether the requirements are fulfilled by the complainant or not.
One of the grievances of the complainant is that electricity has not been provided to him by his Authority i.e O.P nos. 2 and 3. The Authority denies that the complainant is a permanent employee of them. The complainant’s grievance is that he is entitled to electricity free of cost as the other employees of the Mill are entitled to. The service of getting electricity free of cost as demanded by the complainant does not fall within the definition of “service” as provided under section 2(1)(O) of the C.P Act, 1986 . The definition clearly excludes from the precincts of “service” as laid down under section 2(1)(o) of the C.P Act, 1986. The supply of electricity ,free of cost, which is claimed by the complainant is a right enjoyed by the employees in their services in the Mill. An employee is entitled to get supply of electricity free of cost from the Mill Authority. From this fact, it appears that such service is a personal service and an employee is entitled to such service by virtue of a contract of personal service entered with the Mill Authority. A contract of personal service is excluded from the definition of “service” as provided under section 2(1)(O) of the C.P Act, 1986 and regard being had to this aspect of legal provision as pointed out above, it appears that the service claimed by the complainant is not the service within the four corners of the C.P Act and as such, he is not a consumer within the definition of the said Act.
Now comes the question whether the complainant is entitled to get electric connection from the O.P-1 .
In order to maintain a complaint before the Forum, alleging deficiency in service, there must be pre-existence of a transaction between the parties and this has been laid down in Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund Vs. Kartick Das, 1994 SCC (4) 225 by the Hon’ble Apex court. If there is no pre-existence of transaction, there is no complaint maintainable before the Consumer Forum. A pre-existence of transaction always pre-supposes an offer and an acceptance thereof. When offer and acceptance get matured, there follows a transaction which is again followed by service. In the case of supply of electric connection by the Electricity Department, one quotation is submitted by the Department to the Consumer whenever they are satisfied about the fulfillment of requirements as per rules and thereafter, the consumer makes payment in accordance with the quotation. It is at this time, the transaction between the Electricity Department and the
Consumer becomes complete and then the service of Electric connection is given to the consumer by the Electricity Department.
Coming to the facts of the present case, Electricity Department i.e O.P-1 has not given any quotation to the complainant and complainant has not also made any payment to the Electricity Department. The Electricity Department has expressed his unwillingness to give electric connection to the complainant for the reason that the complainant has not been able to provide No Objection Certificate (NOC) to the Electricity Department for getting electric connection to the quarter of the Mill. Moreover, electric connection has not been given to the complainant for reason that the complainant is not the legal occupier of the quarter of the Mill.
Be that as it may, we come to find that there is no pre-existence of transaction between the complainant and the Electric Department and this being so, the complaint against the Electric Department also appears to be not maintainable.
Upon what has been discussed above, it is found that the case is not maintainable in its present form and in Law and that is why the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.
In the result, the case fails.
Hence,
ORDERED
That the complaint case be and the same is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no order passed as to the cost of litigation.
Let a free copy of this order be given to the parties concerned at once.
President
We / I agree.
Member Member
Dictated and corrected by me
President
