The brief fact of the case is that the schedule mentioned property belongs to this petitioner and her other three sons. The impugned property originally belongs to the deceased husband of the complainant. Husband of the complainant, Basudev Santra during his lifetime executed registered deed of settlement being deed no. 2424 for the year 2001. By dint of said deed he settled his properties in favour of his five sons. According to the deed of settlement Basudev Santra settled the schedule mentioned property to his three sons namely, Dillip Kumar Santra, Mantu Santra, Pintu Santra and Basudev Santra reserved his right and his wife’s right of possessing the same till their death. So, Anurupa Santra the petitioner has life interest in the schedule mentioned property. But, Basudev Santra died in the year 2000. The OP Nos. 3 & 4 have no manner of right, title, interest in respect of schedule property. They have been settled separate property by their father Basudev Santra as it will reveal from the said deed of settlement. This petitioner applied for electric connection from the Office of the OP No. 2 and also submitted required fees for the same. But the OP No. 3 and 4 repeatedly gave objection to the same. The OP No. 3 & 4 are very dangerous and desperate in nature and they are continuously torturing this petitioner. The proforma OPs, namely, Dilip Kumar Santra, Mantu Santra and Pintu Santra are influencing the local Police personnel and torturing the complainant. The private opposite parties have no right to give objection in taking electric connection in the suit property by this petitioner. Electric is one of the most essential things for our day to day life. Without electricity this petitioner is suffering irreparable. So the complainant filed the instant suit praying for a direction upon the OP No. 2 to give electric connection in the name of this petitioner.

OP No. 2 appeared and files Written Version denying the allegations leveled against him and averred that complainant never approached and submitted any application before the OP, Electric Company to provide electric meter in her name. So, there is no question of deficiency of service. It appears from the recital of the complaint petition that there is a civil dispute among all sons of the petitioner. But OP Company has nothing to do as regards the personal affairs of the petitioner’s family. The answering OP stated that one of the sons of petitioner namely, Pintu Santra applied before the OP to have electric connection in his own name considering his application quotation was issued on 28.06.2011 and said Pintu Santra was asked to deposit Rs. 438/- within 26.09.2011 but he did not deposit the same. It is not understood why said sons of the petitioner did not comply with the instruction of the OP Company. The OP has been submitted that the present petitioner never approached the OP to take electric connection.

Despite receiving notice OP No. 3, 5 and 7 did not turn up and filed no Written Version as such the proceeding run ex parte against them. So, from the case record it appears that only the OP No. 2 is contesting the case by filing Written Version, interrogatories followed by Written Argument.

Complainant filed Affidavit-in-Chief in which she stated that the OP No. 3 to 7 are sons and she is living in the schedule mentioned property in which she prayed for electric connection by her son. Husband of the complainant in the year 2001 by a deed being no. 2424 settled the schedule mentioned property in such a way that the complainant will stay there during her life time and after her death the property will be devolved upon her three sons namely, Dilip Santra, Mantu Santra and Pintu Santra. Her other two sons, namely, Uttam Santra and Sukumar Santra had no right and title over the suit property. Her husband given another property to his two sons by dint of said deed. As there is no electric connection so she applied electric connection by her son Dilip Santra. But OP  No. 2 did not provide electric connection as a result she is suffering a lot. She told him earlier that she prayed for electric connection by her son Dilip Santra and could not get due to objection put by other son namely, Uttam Santra. She averred that Uttam Santra and Sukumar Santra have no connection to make objection regarding her connection.

OP No. 2 filed Affidavit-in-Chief in which he stated that Smt. Anurupa Santra, Complainant herein, never approached or submitted any application before the OP, Electric Company with request to provide Electric Meter in her own name. He also stated that one of the sons of the Petitioner, namely, Pintu Santra applied before the OP to have electric connection in his own name. Considering his application quotation was issued on 28.06.2011 and said Pintu Santra was asked to deposit Rs. 438/- by 28.09.2011. But, he did not deposit the same. So, deficiency of service does not arise as because there is no relationship of consumer and service provider established in between complainant and the OP Company.

Both sides filed Written notes of Argument which are taken into consideration for passing Final Order. 

            Argument as advanced by the agent of the complainant heard in full.

 From the discussion herein above, we find the following Issues/Points for consideration.

ISSUES/POINTS   FOR   CONSIDERATION

    1. Whether the Complainant Smt. Anurupa Santra is a ‘Consumer’ of the Opposite Party?

     2. Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?

   3. Whether the O.Ps carried on unfair trade practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards   the Complainant?

   4. Whether the complainant proved his case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to him?

DECISION WITH REASONS

           In the light of discussions here in above we find that the issues/points should be decided based on the above perspectives.

(1).Whether the Complainant Smt. Anurupa Santra is a ‘Consumer’ of the opposite party?                                                                                                                                                                              From the materials on record it is transparent that the Complainant is a “Consumer” as provided by the spirit of section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.The Complainant filed the instant complainant before this Forum for getting a direction upon the OP to provide power in her premises. She stated in her complaint petition and filed Xerox copy of deed being no. 2424 of 2001 regarding her title over the schedule mentioned property but she failed to produce any document in respect of application filed by her before the OP No. 2 to get the electric connection to make her life ease. During the filing she produced two money receipt of OP No. 2 dated 11.11.2011 amounting to Rs. 200/- as House SC Charge and another money receipt dated 11.11.2011 of OP No. 2 amounting to Rs. 287/- as security deposit in the name of Dilip Santra. The letter dated 27.09.2012 of OP No. 2 informed Dilip Santra that the service connection at his premises at Vill. Deshpara, Post Diarah, P.S. Singur, Hooghly could not be provided as objection given by one Uttam Santra and a Court order has been submitted along with. So, the OP enquired the No Objection from Court. Due to above discrepancy it may not be possible on the part of the W.B.S.E.D.C.L. to provide connection at his premises within the stipulated period as per Procedures (2010). After perusing the documents and case record it appears that complainant may be resident of a house in which the applicant his son Dilip Santra resides. But she never approached the OP No. 2 for getting electric connection in her name and never paid any fees in her name. Being beneficiary she may enjoy the power after getting power connection. It is nowhere stated in the complaint petition she filed the instant complaint being beneficiary of her son Dilip Santra who applied for power connection before the OP No. 2. So, from the above discussion we may infer that there is no jural relationship in between OP No. 2 and this complainant. As such the complainant has no locus standi to file the instant complaint before this Forum on the pretext of deficiencies of service of the OP. So we may safely conclude that the complainant is not a Consumer u/s. 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Hence, the prayer of the complainant is not tenable in the eye of law.

It is needles to discuss the point nos. 2, 3 & 4.

Hence Ordered

           Hence it is ordered that the complaint case being no. CC 162 of 2013 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OP No. 2.

          OP No. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7 are exonerated from this proceeding.

            Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their Ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/ sent by ordinary post for information & necessary action.