Orissa

Rayagada

CC/117/2018

Krushna Chandra Sahu - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Executive Engineer SouthCo - Opp.Party(s)

Self

27 Oct 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 117/ 2018.                                 Date.     20   .     9  . 2018

 

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                          President.

Sri  Gadadhara Sahu,                                            Member.

Smt. Padmalaya  Mishra,                                     Member.

 

Sri Krushna  Chandra Sahu,  S/O: Late Madhusudan Sahu, R.K.Tailers, Main Road, Near Civil Court, Po/Dist: Rayagada. Cell No. 94390-76669.   Consumer  No. 3111010110015.

… Complainant.

Versus.

 

1.The  Executive Engineer,  SOUTH  Co.,  Electrical Division, Seriguda,  Po/  Dist: Rayagada, Pin  No.  765  001.

 

2.The Sub-divisional Officer, SOUTH  Co.,   Electrical Sub-division,  Seriguda,  Po/  Dist: Rayagada, Pin  No.  765  001.                                                                 …Opposite parties.

.

ORDER.

              

  The complainant  filed  petition U/S-12 of the  C.P. Act along with Interim petition U/S-13-3-B of the C.P.Act before the  forum alleging deficiency in service  against the afore said O.Ps  to restore the  electricity service connection to the shop  premises of the complainant immediately  and questioning  the legality and validity  of disconnection  of his  Electric service line  bearing  Account  No. 3111010110015  without prior  notice.    In both the  petition  the complainant prayed  relief  of the petition are same.  Hence  notice was issued to the O.Ps.  before passing the any interim  order exparte. The O.Ps. appeared and filed   Written version. The  case was  heard  on merit. 

            The brief facts of the case are  summarised  hereunder.

            That the complainant is a Tenant to the shop which  the Electrical Service  connection bearing Account No. 3111010110015 is attached in the name of K.V.L.Kumandan.   The complainant as  a  Tenant    continuing  to the shop room  since more than 20 years continuously and the complainant  paying the  electrical consumption   charges to the  aforesaid connection  continuously and having the receipts  obtained  from  the O.Ps.  On Dt. 17.8.2018  suddenly the O.Ps have  disconnected the Electrical  service line of the above consumer Number  i.e.  the Tailer shop premises  without  consent  and information from  the complainant. 

The  above shop  is only source of income for day to day maintaining  of  the complainant  and his family. The complainant  is a educated unemployed youth  and for his  livelihood  the above Tailer shop   was   started since 20 years.  Due to non supply of electric service   line to the above  premises  it has adversely effected his profession and also income. The complainant  has  approached the  O.Ps from time to time  and given letter  on Dt. 20.8.2018  to the O.Ps    for restoration of  Power supply, but till date no reply received from the O.Ps. Hence this case.      The  complainant  has  already  paid  all the Electrical bills amount to the O.Ps and  the complainant  now ready  to deposit the  50% outstanding  amount against the above consumer  No. 3111010110015.The complainant  forcing    to pay wages to the 4  No. staffs who are engaged for the shop  (ideal  wages) to them in order to avoid any prosecution from the side of the labour department.The complainant has suffered mental harassment and loss in business  and  4 Nos of workers  who are engaged for  the tailor shop are harassed without  electricity. The  lease deed was executed on Dt.01.09.1997 between  complainant and Sri  K.V.L.Kumandan .  Without  intimation  to the complainant  Sri  K.V.L.Kumandan  sold the above shop to some other person.  The present owner   who purchased the above shop at present  also contacted  with the complainant and received  rent for the period from  Dt.  17.5.2018 to Dt. 30.5.2018   a sum of Rs.1,300/- from the  complainant basing Rs.3,000/-  per month  towards rent of  shop. There after  he assured  to make a  fresh agreement   for receiving further rent. After some days  the present owner of the shop brought an agreement for signature of the complainant in turn the complainant  asked after taking advise from our advocate he will sign in the  same agreement.  But till date  the present owner  did not turn up  while the matter is stood thus    suddenly  the O.Ps  disconnected the  electrical  service line of the above shop  which is irreparable loss to the complainant and illegal. The complainant  has not made any irregularities  with the present owner  as he paid  the advance  of Rs.1,300/- and also  the complainant paying  the  energy charges  regularly  in the name of the  previous owner and obtained receipts from the O.Ps.  Due to disconnection of the service line  the complainant   sustained loss  &  mental agony, damages  etc. The complainant          prays the forum direct the O.Ps to  charge / restore  electrical  service  connection  to the Consumer No. 3111010110015  Tailer  shop  premises and such other relief as the  forum deems fit and proper for the best interest of justice.                       

Upon  Notice, the O.Ps No.1 & 2 put in their appearance and filed joint written version in which  they refuting allegation made against them.  The O.P No.1 & 2 taking one and another pleas in the written version   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act, 1986. The facts which are not specifically admitted may be treated  as denial of the O.P  No. 1 & 2. Hence the O.P No.  1 & 2 prays the forum to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

 

In the present  case the present owner of the shop  is not necessary party but voluntarily appeared before the forum and has  participated in the hearing.

              Heard  from the parties  inter alia from  present owner of the above  shop.   Perused the record, documents, written version  filed by the parties. 

This forum  examined the entire material on record  and given  a thoughtful consideration  to the  arguments  advanced  before us by  the  parties touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

                                                               

 

                                                                    FINDINGS.

                            

          From the records it reveals that, there is no dispute that the  complainant

is running  Tailer shop in the house of  Sri K.V.L.Kumandan in whose name  the Electrical connection stands but the complainant is a Tenant under him since  Dt..01.09.1997(Copies of the Lease agreement is in the file which is marked as Annexure-I). The complainant  has been depositing the consumption electric bill of consumer No. 3111010110015 till date(copies of the  money receipt and electricity bill  is in the file which is marked as Annexure-2).

          The complainant who is a tenant & consumer availed the services on payment of consideration, as defined in the Act.  Hence in order to keep the action to be taken  by the present owner of the shop and O.Ps it is felt necessary that an order as provided  U/S-14 of the C.P. Act is to be passed.

          The O.Ps in  their written version preliminary objection  raised by the O.Ps is that the complainant  is not a bonafide consumer  of this shop, since he is only tenant of   Sri  Satish Kumar  Fundanani (Present owner)  of the shop.

          The definition of the word “Consumer” under Section 2(i)( d)(ii)  of the C.P. Act, 1986 covers  the beneficiary of any service hire the tenant of the shop provided  with Electricity is undoubtedly is a beneficiary of that service so long as he is allowed to enjoy that facility.  Notwithstanding  the facts that the service connection in the name of some body other than the tenants.The definition  in clause (ii) of Sub-section (1) of  Section-2 of the act visualizes two distinct categories of consumer, namely, original hirer of services, and the subsequent beneficiary  of the same. The latter has been given an independent status, and, consequential rights by the Act, if the  requirement of approval was satisfied. Such a beneficiary was not a mire  agent or a delegate of the original hirer. The act   gives  him a statutory status in his own right. To insist on an express   written approval of the original   hirer as a  pre-condition, would be eroding  this statutory status  expressly conferred by the statute and rendering the beneficiary totally subservient to the original  consumer. The complainant  has come up with a case that he was a tenant of    Sri K.V.L.Kumandan  since 20 years and has been using the Electrical supply through the connection and has paid the bill.  Sri K.V.L.Kumandan without  intimation had  sold the above shop to Sri  Satish Kumar  Fundanani (Present owner) during the month of May, 2018.  The O.P did not contradict this stand taken by the complainant. In the instant case the complainant   is therefore undoubtedly availing the services  of the O.P. authority with the  approval  of the Ex-owner Sri K.V.L.Kumandan  who was happens  to be the original hirer of the services of the O.P. But now the O.Ps disconnected Electricity receiving the letter from the present owner  who is  no way related to this case.   In view of the aforesaid discussion we therefore hold that the complainant is a consumer under the purview of the C.P. Act, 1986 and the  stand taken by the O.P. have no application in the instant case.

          The new owner   appeared before the forum and submitted that  the shop is too old  and  to required for re-modeling and further submitted   unless his consent   restoration  of  power supply order  will  not  be  passed  by the forum.

          This forum observed the new owner of the shop should allow sufficient time to the complainant till  alternative shop is available  as he has been  residing  in this  shop  since 20 years, inter alia  there was a lease deed between complainant and previous owner on Dt.01.09.1997.  Without giving   sufficient time to the  complainant  disconnection of electricity  is illegal, arbitrary & whimsical. Due to disconnection of the service line the complainant have been deprived   of  his livelihood for day to day maintaining his family.

          The present owner   who purchased the above shop at present  also contacted  with the complainant and received  rent for the period from  Dt.  17.5.2018 to Dt. 30.5.2018   a sum of Rs.1,300/- from the  complainant basing Rs.3,000/-  per month  towards rent of  shop. There after  he assured  to make a  fresh agreement   for receiving further rent. After some days  the present owner of the shop brought an agreement for signature of the complainant in turn the complainant  asked after taking advise from our advocate he will sign in the  same agreement.  But till date  the present owner  did not turn up  while the matter is stood thus    suddenly  the O.Ps  disconnected the  electrical  service line of the above shop  which is irreparable loss to the complainant and illegal.

          The complainant  further pleads that there has been infringement of the right  to life as guaranteed under Article- 21 of the Constitution  of India.  However, the complainant pleads that the legal provision under the  procedural law has also been transgressed.

 

 

          The complainant submitted that  now the present owner has purchased the above shop  during the month of  May, 2018. The previous owner was not intimated the same fact to the complainant.

 

          During the course of hearing the present  owner assured  orally before the forum  that  necessary alternative  arrangement will be allowed  to him  for the  time being  but 16 days  elapsed  he paid deaf ear.

 

          Further the present owner  neither made any agreement with the complainant  nor alternative arrangement  made  for supply of electricity  as assured   before the forum  which  seems whimsical.

 

          It is clear  that the complainant  is in possession of the  above shop  since 20 years (i.e. from Dt.1.9.1997 ) on the strength of lease deed  between  Sri K.V.L.Kumandan  and the complainant for  which Electricity  is essential  and he should not be deprived of  electricity.  On the other hand  on the letter Dt. 7.8.2018  of the present owner  Satish Kumar Fundanani  addressed to the  O.P.  the O.Ps are rightly reluctant for supply the service  connection to the above shop.

 

During the course of  hearing the complainant  relied citation  It is held and reported in OLR 2010 (2) page No.94  wherein the Hon’ble High Court, Odisha observed  “ Disconnection of electric  supply- Writ- Electricity is an essential service for leading normal human life-It is not possible to lead life with dignity without electric supply-Disruption  of electric supply has adverse effect on the livelihood  of the  complainant-Electricity is not a luxury- Rather  it as an essential service-On facts  and circumstances held, in all fitness of  things, the complainant should be allowed to have the facility of electric supply to his premises”   In view of the urgency the complainant prayed and press for order.  So we consider the plight of the complainant and feel that  power  supply is the  Ist.  priority  to the shop  of the complainant but on payment of  50%  of the outstanding electric charges.

Hence it is ordered  that:-

ORDER.

In resultant  the complaint petition stands allowed against the O.Ps  on contest.

           

.  The complainant is directed to deposit Rs. 10,500/- immediately  in the counter of the O.Ps.  and submit the Money receipt before the O.Ps.  The O.Ps. are directed to restore  Electricity service  connection  to the  premises of the complainant  bearing  Account  No. 3111010110015 within 24 hours of receiving M.R. as above  keeping in view the decision  of the  Hon’ble  High  Court  reported in  OLR 2010 (2) page No.94  and also  the guide  lines as mentioned in the above decision. The rest  outstanding amount a sum of Rs.10,500/- will deposit by the complainant within  31.12.2018.  The complainant is further directed  to pay the current monthly  electrical  charges  as per the  Meter reading  which the O.Ps. shall  accept.. Accordingly the case is disposed off,

.

Dictated and corrected by me

Pronounced on this  20th. Day of   September, 2018.

 

Member.                                             Member                                                          President