F I N A L O R D E R / J U D G E M E N T
Presented by: -
Shri Debasish Bandyopadhyay, President.
Brief fact of this case: - This case has been filed under section 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 by the complainant against the Ops stating that complainant is the owner and occupier of the property which is situated at Mouza Barakpur, J. L. No. 16, R. S. Dag No. 3631/3751, 3633/3775, 3630/3772 and L. R. Dag Nos. 4250, 4249 & 4251 under Khatian No. 753, 1640, 1794 & 2034 within Bally Municipality, Ward No. 15, at present under HMC, Ward No. 58, Premises No. 10/1, Ashutosh Mukherjee Lane (Road), P.S. Bally at present P.S. Belur, Howrah by way of Registered Sale Deed, being No. 03072 for the year 2014 before the Additional District Sub-Registrar, Howrah and the complainant is enjoying the said property since 23/05/2014 and there is no domestic electric connection in the said property in the name of the complainant.
Complainant stated that in order to get electric connection in the said property complainant applied before the District Engineer, CESE Ltd. on 11/06/2018 which has been accepted vide M. R. No. 06/15492/18 and accordingly a date was fixed for inspection and after site inspection CESE Ltd. sent a bill for Service charge and Security Deposit and on 25/07/2018 said bill has been paid by the complainant but OP, CESE Ltd. failed to install the electric connection to the complainant.
Complainant also stated that OP No. 2 namely Kanai Lal Prosad is also a monthly premises tenant of Complainant since 23/05/2014 and on 08/12/2014 while some employee of CESE Ltd. came to the said property of complainant for installation of electric meter OP No. 2 with the support of certain hoodlums of the society threatened the employees of CESE Ltd. as well as the complainant for dire consequences and as a result of which employees of CESE Ltd. returned from work without installing the electric connection at the residence of complainant. Complainant also stated that it is a matter of great regret that in spite of illegal activities of OP No. 2, the employees of CESE Ltd. did not inform the local PS for police help for installation of electric meter of the complainant and finally complainant lodged a General Diary before Belur P.S. vide G. D. Entry No. 500/18 dated 08/12/2018.
Complainant stated that since the purchase of the said property complainant passing their days without electric connection at 10/1, Ashutosh Mukherjee Lane (Road), P.S. Bally at present P.S. Belur, Howrah for complainant is suffering immense problem towards his personal as well as professional life. Complainant on so many occasions personally visited the District engineer of CESE Ltd. but did not pay any heed of the request of complainant in the matter of installation of electric meter.
Under the above noted facts and circumstances and finding no other alternative way Complainant filed this case before this Commission praying for directions upon the OP to supply the electric connection in the said property of the complainant at 10/1, Ashutosh Mukherjee Lane (Road), P.S. Bally at present P.S. Belur, Howrah and to pay the compensation to the complainant a sum of Rs.50,000/- and also to pay cost of Rs.40,000/- to the complainant for causing physical and mental harassment and complainant also praying for direction upon the OP to pay litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant..
Defense Case: - Both OP Nos. 1 & 2 after receiving notice of the instant case appeared and have contested the case by filing separate W/V denying each and every material allegations made by the complainant and contented inter alia that: -
OP No. 1 in his W/V stated that the instant application as framed by the complainant is not maintainable either in law or in facts and complainant has got no cause of action or right to sue as alleged because of the dispute involved here is not a consumer dispute it is civil in nature and the instant case is bad for non joinder of necessary parties.
OP No. 1 also stated that OP No. 1 received an application from the complainant for a 0.3 KW \domestic load on 26/06/2018 at 31/1/N, Ramlachan Shire Street, Belur Math, Howrah and as per mandate of stature and on bonafide good faith the instant OP proceeded with the requisition of the applicant and on the same day a letter was issued to the applicant informing him that an inspection would take place on 27th June, 2018 in between 9 am to 1 pm when the applicant was requested to remain present at site and after completion of the said inspection offer letter along with MASD Bill was issued and complainant paid the same on 25/07/2018. Thereafter, the men of OP No. 1 were deputed at side on 28/07/2018, 03/12/2018 and on 10/12/2018 but all the attempts of OP No. 1 becomes futile due to resistance at site by the other inmates of the above premises including private opposite party. Accordingly. OP No. 1 informed the matter to the complainant which has been admitted by the complainant in the petition of complaint. OP No. 1 is a creature of statute and it has acted all through as per the mandate of statute and on bonafide good faith. The instant OP is a creature of statute and it has its own rules and procedures which it cannot override at the instance of the complainant and complainant failed to arrange free access to the supply position and/or failed to arrange for way leave. Complainant has failed to comply his part of the obligation and so complainant himself is guilty of negligence. There is no deficiency of service and/or any unfair trade practice on the part of the OP No. 1. It is amply clear that there is a serious dispute by and between the complainant and other inmates of the said house in question and the instant case is absolutely civil in nature and competent for any Civil Court. Thus, the instant case is absolutely mis-conceived, speculative and designed to harass a public utility concern and for ends of justice the instant case is liable to be dismissed with cost.
On the other hand, OP No. 2 in his W/V stated that the instant complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable either in law or in facts. It is denied by OP No. 2 that the complainant by his alleged purchase is the owner of the holding No. 10/1, Asutosh Mukherjee Road, Belur, Howrah as claimed by the complainant and it is also denied that there is no electric connection in the name of the complainant within the said holding.
OP No. 2 admitted that OP No. 2 is a tenant at Holding No. 10/1, Asutosh Mukherjee Road, Belur, Howrah but OP No. 2 denied that he is residing there since May,, 2014 and he has no right to obstruct the installation of electric connection inside his tenanted room.
OP No. 2 also denied that there is meter room of the holding situated within the tenanted room of OP No. 2. It is the landlord who intentionally did not make any meter room and as such, whenever tenants of the said holding applied for their service connection the CESE authority compelled to install electric meter within the tenanted room of the tenants/consumers and in the manner there are so many consumers of CESE Authority who are enjoying their electric service connection within their tenanted rooms. Hence, the claim of complainant is nothing but a plan to harass OP No. 2 and to create pressure upon OP No. 2. As such, the story of common electric meter room at Holding No. 10/1, Asutosh Mukherjee Road, Belur, Howrah within the tenanted room of OP No. 2 is out and out false. OP No. 2 also submitted that complainant without filing this complaint petition can install his service connection within his occupied portion like others of the self same holding or complainant being the owner as claimed could install common electric meter room within the large vacant space within the holding where he and the others could install their meter safely. So, it is clear that with an intention to create illegal and offending pressure upon OP No. 2 complainant has filed this complaint petition and the story of lodging G.D.E. is nothing but the same has been manufactured in order to substantiate this case before this Forum. As such, OP No. 2 prayed before this Commission for dismissal of the instant case with exemplary cost.
Issue(s) / Point(s) for Consideration
On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, this District Commission for the interest of proper and complete adjudication of this case is going to adopt the following point(s) for consideration: -
- 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 Ops or there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.
- Is the complainant entitled to get relief/reliefs as prayed for?
Evidence on record
Complainant filed written examination-in-chief supported by affidavit, failed reply against the questionnaire of Ops and also filed BNA in support of his case.
On the other hand, Ops have filed their W/V separately, filed questionnaire against the evidence of complainant, filed reply against the questionnaire of complainant, filed examination-in-chief supported by affidavit and finally filed BNA.
DECISION WITH REASON
The first two points for consideration which have been framed on the point whether the complainant is a consumer under the O.ps. or not and whether this District Commission has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try this case or not are taken up for consideration at first as because this two issues are interlinked and/or inconnected with each other.
For the purpose arriving at the decision in respect of above noted two points for consideration this District Commission after making scrutiny of the petition of complaint and the written version which have been filed in this case and also after going through the evidence of record finds that the complainant prayed for installing electric connection at the schedule mentioned property stated in the complaint and the O.p. no.1 after making inspection of the said premises submitted quotation and after getting quotation the complainant has deposited the quotation amount along with security charges in the Office of the O.p. no.1. This factor is clearly depicting that the complainant is a Consumer under the O.p. no.1 and this case is maintainable in the eye of law.
On close scrutiny from the materials on record, it reveals that the complainant is the Consumer under Section 2(i)(d)(i)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986 to the O.ps.
It is very important to note that the valuation of this case is far below the amount of Rs.20,00,000/- which indicates that this District Commission has it’s pecuniary jurisdiction to try this case. Moreover, the complainant is a resident of 31/1/N Ramlachan Chire Street, P.O.-Belur, District-Howrah and the O.p. no.1 has it’s official business at the address 443/1 Grand Trank Road (N), Howrah which are under the territorial jurisdiction of this District Commission.
All these factors are clearly reflecting that the complainant is a Consumer under the O.p. no.1 and this District Commission has territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try this case. Thus, the first two points for consideration adopted in this case are deciding in favour of the complainant.
The point for consideration no.3 has been framed on the point whether there is any unfair trade practice or deficiency of service on the part of the O.ps. or not? The point for consideration no.4 has been framed on the question whether the complainant is entitled to get relief/reliefs as prayed for in this case or not?
These two issues are clubbed together and taken up for discussion jointly for the score of convenience science of discussion.
In the matter of arrival at the decision in respect of above noted two points for consideration, this District Commission after making scrutiny of the materials of the case record, pleadings of the parties as well as evidence submitted by complainant and O.ps. and it’s interrogatories and reply given by the parties of this case observed that there is no controversy over this issue that the O.p. no.1 proceeded with the requisition of the applicant on 26/06/2018 and on the same date a letter was issued to the applicant informing him that an inspection would be taken place on 27th June, 2018 in between 9 a.m to 1 p.m. when the complainant was asked to remain present at the site. Thereafter the men of O.p. no.1 deputed to work at the site on 28/07/2018, 03/12/2018 and on 10/12/2018 in the matter of installation of the electricity at the schedule mentioned property of the complainant but all the attempts of O.p. no.1 ended in fiasco due to restrain at the site by the other inmates of the said premises including O.p. no.2. It is also reflected from the evidence on record that O.p. no.1 informed the said matter to the complainant which has also been admitted by the complainant in the petition of complaint.
All the above noted factors are clearly reflecting that the O.p. no.1 had taken all steps and had given all attempts in the matter of installation of electricity at the schedule mentioned property of the complainant/petitioner but the men and agents of O.p. no.1 failed to install electricity in the said premises due to the disturbance caused by other inmates of the said premises. In this matter O.p.no.1 and it’s men and agents have no fault or negligence on their part. It also clearly indicates that the O.p. no.1 has no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on it’s part and so this District Commission is of the view that the allegation raised by the complainant that the O.p. no.1 has deficiency in service and unfair trade practice is not correct.
In this regard it is very important to note that the complainant has also not taken any steps to conduct any local Inspection Commission and the complainant side has also not taken any step in the matter of restraining O.p. no.2 and his men and agent and also the other residents of the said building from creating any disturbance in the matter of installation of electric line. In other words it can be said that the complainant has failed to provide peaceful atmosphere to the O.p. no.1 in the matter of installation of electric line at the schedule mentioned property. This matter clearly indicates that the complainant has failed to prove his case in respect of points for consideration nos.4 & 5 which have been adopted in this case.
In the result,
it is accordingly,
o r d e r e d
that this complaint case being No.434/2018 be and the same is disposed of on contest. No order is passed as to cost.
The final order will be available in the following website Dictated & Corrected by me
(Sri Debasish Bandyopadhyay)
President, D.C.D.R.C., Howrah
