West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/7/2012

Pabitra Bhudari - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Divisional Manager, Group Electric Supply, W.B.S.E.D.C.L - Opp.Party(s)

30 May 2012

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

 Complaint case No. 07/2012                                                         Date of disposal: 30/05/2012                               

 BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT :  Mr. K. S. Samajder.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mrs. Debi Sengupta.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mr. Kopot Chattopadhyay.

    For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Mr. A. K. Dutta.

    For the Defendant/O.P.S.                          : Mr. S. K. Bhattacharya.

           Pabitra Bhudari, S/o-Late Naba Kumar Bhudari of Vill-Salika, P.O.-Hariatara, P.S.-         

           Kharagpur(L), Dist-Paschim Medinipur………Complainant.

                                                              Vs.

1. The Divisional Manager, Group Electric Supply,  W.B.S.E.D.C.L., Inda, Kharagpur, P.S.-Kharagpur, Dist-Paschim Medinipur
2. The Station. Manager, Kharagpur Electric Supply, W.B.S.E.D.C.L., Inda, Kharagpur, P.S.-Kharagpur, Dist-Paschim Medinipur …………………Ops.

            The case of the complainant, in a nut shell, is as follows :-

            The applicant Pabitra Bhudari on 15/2/2011 filed an application for domestic connection for electricity at his in plot No.102/Mouza Salika, within P.S. Kharagpur (Local). The petitioner also deposited service connection charges, security deposits, earnest money etc. as par quotation issued by the Op No.2.  Such deposit of money was made on 9/6/2011 but the Op No.2 having not provided any electric connection to the house of the complainant, the complainant submitted an application on 16/9/2011 requesting the Op No.2 to provide new domestic line. Vide letter dated 17/9/2011 the Op No.2 stated to the complainant that they are not in a position to provide domestic connection.  The complainant sent reply to such letter on 15/10/2011 to the Assistant engineer and the Op No.2 but to not effect.

             Hence, the complainant has paid for a direction upon the Ops to install domestic line to the house of the complainant and other relieves.

             The Ops contested the case by filing a W/O contending inter alia, that the complainant suppressed the real state of affairs in respect of the domestic line at his premises.  The Ops further contended that on 24/8/2011 it came to the knowledge of the Ops that one Prabhat

Contd………….P/2

 

- ( 2 ) -

Bhudari had filed a partition suit against the complainant for partition and separate possession in the scheduled property before the Ld. 1^st. Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) bearing suit No.263/11 and the said suit is still pending. The Ops further contended that the complainant also filed a suit against Pabitra Bhudari along with an application for injunction in the ejmali property of the complainant and the said Prabhat Bhudari.  The said suit was numbered as 171 of 2011 and the same is still pending.  Therefore, the Ops contended that the complainant is not the actual owner of the premises in which the domestic line has been sought and that, the complainant has suppressed material facts and as such the complainant is not the consumer and he is not entitled to get the relief as sought for.

We think that the following points require determination in this case :

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer within the meaning of Section (1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act 1986.
2. Whether the Ops are deficient in providing service within the meaning of Section 2(1)(g) read with section 2 (1)(o) of the C.P. Act 1986.
3. Whether the complainant is not entitled to get the relief as sought for.

Decisions with reasons :-

Point no. 1.   

              It is undisputed that the complainant had filed an application with the Ops praying for electric connection at his house at plot NO.102 of Mouza Salika under Kharagpur (Local) P.S.  It is also not denied that the complainant was served with a quotation and the complainant duly paid the quotation money on 9/6/2011.  The documents filed on behalf of the complainant also support this case of the complainant.  There after, the electric connection having not been given to the complainant to the house of the complainant, the complainant made correspondence with the Ops.  It is also not denied by the Ops.  The complainant having paid the amount as par quotation for the electric connection at his house and the Ops having accepted the said I find that the complainant becomes a consumer within the ambit of Section 2(1)(d) of the C.P. Act 1986 and the Ops becomes service provider within the meaning  of Section 2(1)(o) of the C.P. Act 1986.  Thus this point is disposed of.

 Point nos.  2 & 3.  

                   As stated earlier, admitted position is that pursuant to the application of the complainant the Ops supplied quotation indicating the amount to be deposited by the complainant and the said amount is duly deposited by the complainant on 9/6/2011 which would be evident from the receipt granted by the Ops.

        Now, the Op contended that they received a lawyer’s letter as regards the dispute in respect of the property where the complainant sought for electric connection. On 17/9/2011 the

Contd………….P/3

 

- ( 3 ) -

Op No.2 issued a letter to the complainant informing him about the injunction order passed by the court and also asking the  complainant to file fresh document for occupancy. On 24/8/2011

the Op No.2 issued a letter to the complainant about suppressing his occupancy / way leave permission and also pendency of the civil case by that letter. The complainant asked to file fresh document regarding occupancy.  Two cases bearing T.S. No.263/2011 in the Ld. 1^st Court of Civil judge Senior Division, Medinipur and T.S. No.171/2011 in the Ld. 2^nd Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Medinipur and also the letter of Mr. Arijit  Karmakar Ld. Advocate  dated 24/8/2011 were referred.  Those documents have been filed on behalf of the Ops. On behalf of both the parties two information slips duly issued by the Ld. Court have been filed. From all these documents I find that the suit No.263/2011 was filed against the complainant of this case for partition.  The other suit, viz, T.S. No.171/2011 was filed by the complainant of this case against Prabhat Bhudari, the plaintiff in T.S. No.261/2011. During hearing the Ld. Lawyers clearly admitted and from the documents on record we find that Prabhat & Prabitra, the complainant of the present case are brothers.  It is further found that both of them are co owners in respect of the property in which the house of the present complainant is situated where the electricity connection was sought.  From no document filed by both the parties it would appear that there was any order of injunction. Rather, from the information slip issued by the Court of Ld. Civil Judge (Senior Division) 1^st Court, Medinipur on 16/5/2012 as filed by the complainant it would appear that no injunction order has been passed. The letter of Mr. Arijit Karmakar upon which the Ops relied, does not find mention of any injunction order in respect of the  property at which the injunction at which the electricity connection was sought by the complainant.  I find that the Ops has clearly misread and misinterpreted the documents and the entire situation and denied the complainant the electric connection despite fulfillment of terms and conditions and also payment of prescribed fees by him. As stated earlier, the property in question appear to be ejmali property. The Ld. Lawyer for the Ops also fairly submitted that the complainant  is a co owner in respect of the property.  It is well-known that every co owner has his right or interest in respect of every inch of the ejmali property till partition is effected by metes and bounds. In the case at our hands, although partition suit is pending but no partition has yet been effected.  Therefore, the complainant cannot be asked to file document regarding his exclusive possession and/or way leave.  It is also curious to note that how the complainant can be denied the electricity connection since it appeared from the time of hearing that the complainant’s brothers Prabhat Bhudari has been enjoying the electricity connection in the undivided property.

     Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Ops are deficient in providing service to the complainant and they must render service immediately.          

Contd………….P/4

 

- ( 4 ) -

             These issues are therefore, disposed of accordingly.

                                      Hence

                                                 ordered

                                                                      that complaint be allowed on contest. The Ops are hereby directed to provide domestic electric connection to the complainant forthwith but in any case not letter then 15 days from this date.  Let copies of the judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost.

Dic. & Corrected by me

                                                         I agree               I agree                      

               Sd/-                                       Sd/-                  Sd/-                                Sd/-

         President                                Member            Member                       President

                                                                                                                  District Forum

                                                                                                         Paschim Medinipur.