The case of the complainant in brief is that the schedule mentioned property is enjoyed by him and her ailing mother after the death of his father. He filed the quotation after depositing all fees before the Op no.1. Inspite of depositing the said fees the OP No.1 is not providing power in his residence as the OP No.2 is causing impediment while supplying power in the place of the complainant. The OP No.2 filed objection before the OP No.1 and threatening the complainant so that he could not effectuate power in his premises. His mother is ill and during the summer season they are suffering a lot. So he filed the instant complaint before this Forum praying to get power connection from the OP no.1 and the OP No.2 could not make any obstruction in that power connection.
The OP No.1 filed written version denying the allegations as leveled against him and denied that inspite of receiving the quotational amount he could not effect the service connection. He averred that after the petitioner applied for NSC at his premises inspection was made and it was found that one PCC pole was required for effecting the said connection and during commissioning of the said PCC pole in presence of the petitioner local people forcibly did not allow the men of this OP to execute the work. Being unable to execute the work this OP asked the petitioner either to arrange for police protection or to provide way leave. Instead of doing so the petitioner filed the instant complaint before this Forum.
The OP no.2 by filing written version denied the allegations as leveled him and averred that the property of the OP stands in the name of Rabarani Karmakar so she is the necessary party. The petitioner falsely stated in his application that he wants to take electric connection in his premises without encroaching the land of the OP No.2 and the OP is unnecessarily creating disturbance in the matter of installation of the electric connection in the house of the petitioner. There is no mention where from the electric connection of proposed to be taken from the electric pole. The petitioner has no passage or way leaves wherefrom he can take electric connection in his house encroaching the land of the OP No.2. The OP has got serious objection if the petitioner wants to take electric connection over the property of his wife. The dispute has been discussed locally where the petitioner agreed to withdraw the proceeding under section 144 Cr.P.C. pending before the SDEM Hooghly Sadar. Instead of withdrawing the petition before the SDEM, Hooghly he filed the instant complaint before this Forum with false plea. The OP does not dispute that the petitioner has every right to take electric connection in his premises without encroaching the land of his wife. The petitioner got no prima facie case of his own and the case shall be dismissed with cost.
The OP No.3 by filing written version denied the allegations as leveled against her and averred that the complainant filed the application form before the OP No.1 without mentioning wherefrom the electric connection is proposed to be taken from the electric polls. She also averred that without local inspection commission this Ld. Forum cannot come into conclusion about the position of the said property and way leave wherefrom the petitioner wants to take connection. The petitioner wants to take electric connection in his house encroaching the land of this OP. So the OP No.3 got serious objection if the petitioner wants to take power connection encroaching her property. She also averred that during the pendency of the Suit the answering OP filed one civil suit being Title Suit No.331of12 before the 1st court of civil judge (Jr. Divn.), Hooghly so that the petitioner cannot take electric connection over the disputed passage and the injunction order still in force.
In such a way the OP No.2&3 filed written objection against the inspection commission as well as interim petition.
The complainant filed affidavit in chief in which he alleged that the OP No.1 is not providing electricity in his place as a result he is suffering a lot with his ailing mother and he denied the pleas taken by the OP in their written versions and further assailed that the OP No.2 is causing impediment for providing power in his place and denied that he has no way leave.
The OP No.1 filed affidavit in chief in which he assailed that during the commissioning of a PCC pole in presence of the complainant local people forcibly did not allow his men to execute the work. The answering OP also advised the complainant to arrange police protection or to provide way leave. But the complainant apart from doing so filed the instant complaint alleging deficiency of service. But he is not deficient in providing service.
OP No.2&3 filed affidavit in chief which are nothing but replica of written version.
Both sides filed interrogatories and replies followed by the written notes of arguments in accordance with the order of the Hon’ble State Commission, WB.
The argument as advanced by the advocates of the parties heard in full.
From the discussion herein above, we find the following Issues/Points for consideration.
ISSUES/POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
1). Whether the Complainant Tarak Sardar is a ‘Consumer’ of the Opposite party? 2).Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
3).Whether the OPs 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 Tarak Sardar 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. As the complainant being an intending consumer of electricity deposited the quotation money before the OP No.1 and fulfilled all formalities of getting electricity, so the complainant is a consumer of the OP No.1 and it is admitted by the OP Company being the service provider and other OPs are necessary parties for proper adjudication of the case.
(2).Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
Both the complainant and opposite party are residents/carrying on business within the district of Hooghly. The complaint valued within Rs.20,00,000/- limit of this Forum. So, this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case.
(3).Whether the opposite party carried on Unfair Trade Practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards the Complainant?
The O.P. No.1 herein is the Station Manager of an office of the largest electric supply company throughout the State of W.B. The Company WBSEDCL running its business throughout the state except territorial jurisdiction of Kolkata Corporation. The O.P. Company is providing power in the rural areas in different projects for a long period. That is why the consumers in the rural areas are highly grateful to the Company. While providing powers throughout the state it also suffers from many discrepancies. Like not sending/ preparing bills in due time or sending bills for a period when the powers are discontinued and not taking reading regularly as a result the consumers suffers from paying accumulated units at a higher rate and fails to provide powers to the consumers after taking quotation money. As a result the consumers suffer a lot and make their grievances for remedy before the appropriate Forums. The inaction/negligence/ discrepancies of the OP No.1 tantamount to deficiency of service for which the consumers are suffering a lot.
After perusing the case record it appears that the complainant being the intending consumer applied for getting power connection from OP No.1 and deposited the quotation money. In accordance with the application form the OP No.1 went to the Scheduled property to effectuate the power connection but they could not do the same due to obstruction given by the OP No.2&3 and others. Then the complainant being aggrieved filed the instant case before this Forum u/s-12 of the consumer protection Act,1986 alleging that the OP No.1 is deficient in providing service towards this complainant and other OPs caused obstruction as a result he is deprived of getting electricity. Immediately after the complaint petition was admitted this Forum heard the interim petition u/s-13(3B) and rejected the prayer for giving temporary connection. The complainant filed another petition for appointing local inspection commission and after hearing the parties and perusing the case record this Forum rejected the prayer for appointing local inspection vide order dated 27.11.2012.
We have carefully considered the argument, written arguments, written versions, affidavit- in- chief and interrogatories and replies thereon and it appears that the complainant has not made any allegation against the OP No.1. The Xerox copy of record of rights reflects that khatian no.276 transpires that deceased Kalipada Sardar father of the present complainant was a co possessor in the bastu land of plot no.1185 in mouza Simla, J.L.No.16 by virtue of license under Gour Gopal Singha Roy ( deceased). The OP No.2&3 have no dispute regarding the possession of the complainant in the said bastu land to which the new electricity connection through the common passage leading from the main road to his house. But the commission report submitted by the advocate commissioner before the Civil Judge Jr. Divn, Hooghly in Title Suit being No.331 of 2012 speaks that the ingress and egress of the defendant is a narrow lane in which defendants can pass one by one even cycle cannot be passed and the plaintiff (OP No.3) being the owner of the land left the narrow goli lane for the defendant (Complainant herein) and the defendant admitted that they are using the goli path for 40 years. The police report that filed before the SDEM court in M.P. case No.713 of 2015 speaks that Saraswati Sardar mother of the complainant is the petitioner, she wanted to get new electric connection by using the said golipath from the transformer of main road but the OP members did not gave permission & try to stop the said work because of he is the owner of the said golipath.
The interrogatories to OP No.1 the complainant asked in question No.12 that the pathway is only and exclusively used by the petitioner and his family for a long time. Is not it? The answer is : cannot say. In question no 13 it is asked that there is no other way of petitioner except said way. Is not it? The answer: cannot say. In question no 14 it is asked that OP No.2&3 do not have any possession over the said pathway. Is not it? The answer: cannot say. In question no 15 it is asked that petitioner is entitled to get electricity being a bonafide consumer. The answer: The complainant has failed to provide way leave. Unless he provides the same he is not entitled to get electricity. He has also failed to arrange for police protection.
The order dated 20.12.2012 of Title Suit being No.331of 2012 pending before the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) 1st court speaks that the ad- interim order of injunction is considered and allowed ex parte. The defendant No.1 is restrained from extending electricity connection upon his house crossing over the plaintiffs A and B schedule property till 15.01.2013.
So there is a specific direction upon the OP no.1 regarding not to provide electric connection over disputed land.
It is true that having regard to the laudable object behind the legislation of the Act, to protect the interest of consumers, literal interpretation has to be placed on the scheme of the Act avoiding hyper technical approach. But the civil court in which the OP No.3 filed against the complainant and OP No.1 and prayed to pass an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendant No.1 his men and agent not to take electric connection in B schedule property over the land of the plaintiff i.e. A schedule property during the pendency of this suit and considering the urgency into the matter let there be an ad interim order be passed and after hearing the Ld. Civil Judge, Jr. Divn, Hooghly pleased to find that the ad- interim order of injunction is considered and allowed ex parte. The defendant No.1 is restrained from extending electricity connection upon his house crossing over the plaintiffs A and B schedule property till 15.01.2013. Thereafter no specific order has been filed by the parties till the argument.
It is crystal clear from the above discussion that the proposed route for extending electricity connection was under objection from the OP no.2&3 as the connection was contemplated to be taken over the property of OP No.2&3 as well as narrow goli path through which the complainant was entitled to ingress and egress. The OP No.1 also went there to effectuate the power connection but could not due to strong objection by the OP No 2&3 and others. As the complainant could not prove his case by producing sufficient documents that OP No.1 is deficient in providing service to its consumer, so the prayer for relief before this Forum is not tenable.
4). whether the complainant proved his case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to him?
The discussion made herein before, we have no hesitation to come in a conclusion that the complainant could not able to prove his case. So the Opposite Party is not liable to pay any compensation to this complainant.
ORDER
Hence, ordered that the complaint case being No.41/2012 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the opposite party, with no order as to cost.
The Opposite Parties are exonerated from their liability.
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.
