Presented by: -

                   Shri Debasish Bandyopadhyay, President.

Complaint Case No. 160/2020

The complainant of this case has instituted  this complaint case against the OPs for passing direction upon the OP Nos. 1 & 2 for installation of the new electric connection at the schedule mentioned property and for restraining the OP Nos. 3 to 16 and their men and agents / servants from disturbing the OP Nos. 1 & 2 in the matter of installation of the electric connection  and for passing direction upon the Officer-in-Charge, Jagacha P.S. to render appropriate police help to the complainant and OP Nos. 1 & 2 for installation of the electric connection at the schedule mentioned premises and also for awarding compensation and litigation cost.

Fact of this case

Case of the complainant

The case of the complainant which is unearthed  from the petition of complaint filed in bird’s eye view is that the complainant is a bonafide consumer  under the OP Nos. 1 & 2 and the complainant is one of the co-owner in respect of the Bastu Land situated R.S. Dag No. 1196 under R.S. Khatian No.2587 corresponding to L.R. Dag No. 1230 under L.R.Khatian No. 2608 and 5876 of Mouza Unsani under Howrah Municipal Corporation Ward No. 46 within the P.S. Jagacha, District Howrah.  The further case of the complainant is that the suit property  is originally belonged to Santosh Seuli, the predecessor-in-interest  of the complainant  and his brother Panchkori Seuli who acquired the same by virtue of a registered Sale Deed dtd. 06.07.1964 and subsequently Panchkori  Seuli died as bachelor and according to Hindu Succession Act his brother Santosh Seuli became  the absolute owner  of the A schedule property.  It is further stated by the complainant that while the complainant is in a position of the above noted property Santosh Seuli died leaving behind his widow  Sarala Seuli , two sons namely Bholanath Seuli (Complainant) and Becha Seuli and one married sister Babli Das as legal heirs    and they inherited the said property at 1/4^th share .  It is alleged by the complainant that subsequently  the complainant’s mother Sarala Seuli  died intestate  on 24.03.2011 leaving behind her two sons namely the complainant and Becha Seuli and married daughter Babli Das  who inherited  the said property at 1/3  share equally.  It is submitted by the complainant side that the complainant being one of the co-owner of the suit property has applied a new electric connection in his name before the OP No. 1 on 05.12.2019 and a quotation was issued by OP No. 1 on the same date in favour of the complainant and the complainant has deposited a sum of Rs. 852/- in the office of OP No. 1 towards  security deposit and service connection charge.  It is further alleged that after depositing  the said amount the OP No.1 came to the B schedule property and carried out inspection and at the time of inspection  the OP No. 1 was fully satisfied and assured the complainant in the matter of installation of the new electric connection within a short period.  It is pointed out that the complainant thereafter visited the office of the OP No. 1 for several occasions in the matter of installation of the electric connection which is an essential service for human being to live peacefully but the officials of OP No. 1 did not pay any heed to such request of the complainant.  It is asserted by the complainant  side that in the month of February, 2020 the official staffs of OP No. 1  and their authorized  agent “Shitola Electric”  came to the case property for installation of the new electric connection but due to strong  and unnecessary resistance  by OP Nos. 3 to 16 and other  authorized  unknown persons, the men of Op No. 1 refused to install  electric connection at the said property of the complainant.  It is further alleged that on 12-14/03/2020 the complainant received a letter from OP No. 1 and came to know that a way leave  permission is required for L.T. infrastructure  and thereafter the complainant  went to the office  of OP No. 1 for several times with a request to install the electric connection at the portion of the complainant  who is a senior citizen of India but the official of OP No. 1 refused to install  the electric connection due to resistance of OP Nos. 3 to 16.  It is also asserted by the complainant side that the complainant is still  in dark at the portion of the new electric connection at the portion of the complainant which has been described in the B schedule  and finally finding no other alternative  the complainant has instituted  this case against the OP Nos. 1 & 2 as they are the guilty of gross negligence  and deficiency of service and this case has been filed for getting relief as per prayer of the complaint petition.

Defence Case   -     The  OP Nos. 1 & 2 after receiving notice  appeared in case and has filed their W/V denying all the material allegations  leveled against them in the complaint petition and this specific case of the OP Nos. 1 & 2 is that  they are ready  to install electric connection at the premises of the complainant  but as the OP Nos. 3 to 16 are raising  objection in strong new connection at the premises  of the complainant, they have been compelled  to leave the place  without affecting  electric connection at the premises of the complainant.

The Op Nos. 3 to 16 after receiving notice  appeared  in this case  and has filed W/V and denied all the material allegations  leveled against them by the complainant  in the complaint petition.  This specific case of the OP Nos. 3 to 16 in a nutshell  is that the complainant and his men and agent are very influential persons in the locality and they tried to take electric connection forcefully over the property of the OPs  and some other persons who have been impeded as parties.  It is also  pointed out  that the complainant  tried to take  electric connection over the portion of a “Doba” which has been used regularly for the purpose of bathing  and washing  by the persons  of the locality  and further being used for Pisci Culture Purpose  and other parties and  the said “Doba” is measuring about 48 Satak  which is situated at LR Dag No. 1228 of Mouza  Unsani of which is owned by the OPs as co-owners.  It is further alleged that the Site Plan  and  provided by the complainant as Annexure A  is a manufactured document  and it is not at all correct.  For all these reasons  the OP Nos. 3 to 16 have prayed before this District Commission for dismissing this case with heavy cost.

Points of consideration

            On  the basis of the pleadings of the parties of this case, this District Commission for the interest of proper and complete adjudication  of  the fate of this complaint  case and also for arriving at just and proper  decision in this complaint case is going to adopt the following points of consideration :-

(i)        Is this case maintainable in its present form and in the eye of law?

(ii)       Is the complainant consumer under the OP Nos. 1  & 2 or not ?

(iii)      Has the complainant cause of action for institution of this complaint case against the OPs or not?

(iv)   Has this District Commission jurisdiction to try this case or not ?

 (v)   Whether the complainant is entitled to get a direction upon the OP Nos. 1 & 2 for immediate installation  of the electric connection at the B schedule property by restraining  the OP Nos. 3 to 16 or not?

(vi)      To what other relief / reliefs is the complainant entitled to get from this case?

Evidence on record

In order to prove the case the complainant  has filed his evidence on affidavit  and Op No. 2 has furnished their interrogatories  and complainant has given reply against the said interrogatories.  But fact remains as the OP had not taken any steps, this District Commission has been compelled to close the evidence of the OPs.

Argument  highlighted  by both sides

In this case the complainant side has filed BNA and in addition of filing BNA the complainant side has also highlighted their verbal submission and has given emphasis  on the evidence on  record.

On the other hand the OP Nos. 1 & 2 has only highlighted their verbal submission but they have not filed any BNA.  The OP Nos. 3 to 16 have neither appeared at the time of argument  nor filed any BNA.

Decision with reasons

The issues and / or questions involved in the first 4 (four) points of consideration are interlinked and / or interconnected with one another and for that reason and also for the interest of convenience of discussion, the first four issues are clubbed together and taken up for discussion jointly at first.

Out of these four issues one of the vital points of consideration is jurisdiction of this District Commission / Forum to try this case.  In this connection this District Commission / Forum after making scrutiny of the material of this case record finds that the complainant is a resident within the district of Howrah and OP No. 1 is carrying on business at Jagacha within the district of Howrah and OP Nos. 3 to 16  are the residents of Jagacha within the district of Howrah.  These factors are clearly  reflecting that this District Commission has territorial jurisdiction to try this case.  More so, the claim of the complainant is far below of Rs. 20,00,000/- and so this District Commission / Forum has its pecuniary jurisdiction as well.  Thus, this point of consideration framed relating to jurisdiction issue is decided in favour of the complainant side.  The point of maintainability and the question as to whether the complainant is a consumer under the OP No. 1 or not, is a vital question.  For the purpose of determination  of this point,  this District Commission after making scrutiny of the material of this case record as well as evidence on record finds that the complainant  applied for electric connection in his portion at B schedule property to the OP No. 1 and in view of the application the OP No. 1 asked the complainant to deposit the quotation amount and  accordingly the complainant has deposited  the quotation amount.  But fact remains that on account of raising objection by the OP Nos. 3 to 16.  The OP No. 1 of this case has not provided electric connection to the complainant. When the complainant has deposited the quotation amount to the OP No. 1 as per direction of the OP No. 1  it is crystal clear that the complainant is a consumer under the OP No. 1 who is service provider.  This matter is also highlighting that this case is also maintainable in its present form and in the eye of law.  From the material of this case record as well as evidence on record this District Commission / Forum finds that the OP No. 1 has not yet install the electricity at the portion of the complainant ( B schedule property) without having any reason and this factor is clearly reflecting that there is cause of action of the complainant for institution  of this complaint case the said cause of action is still continuing.

A cumulative consideration of the above noted discussion goes to show that the first four points of consideration have been proved by the complainant side so the first four points of consideration are decided in favour of the complainant side.

Regarding  the point of consideration No. 5 and point of consideration No. 6 the crucial question which is required to be solved  is whether, complainant is entitled to get electric connection  in his portion at B schedule property from OP No.1 or not ?  In this connection this District Commission after making scrutiny of the evidence on record finds that the OP No.1 has failed to provide the electric connection due to illegal resistance of OP Nos. 3 to 16.  Over this issue it is very important to note that the OP Nos. 3 to 16 have failed to produce  any document before this District Commission  in support of their action of resistance in the matter of installing electricity at the B schedule property.   In course of trial of this case Op Nos. 3 to 16 also failed to show that there is restraining order of the Ld. Civil Court in the matter of installation of the electricity in the B schedule property.  No such document has been placed before the OP No. 1 by the Op Nos. 3 to 16.  Just for submitting verbal intimation the OP No. 1 cannot restrain himself from providing electric connection to the complainant in his portion at B schedule property.  In this regard it is the settle principle of law that every citizens has right to get electricity even he may be a trespassers.  In this respect the decision of the Hon’ble  High Court, Calcutta  passed in Abhimanyu Mazumdar Vs. Superintending  Engineer  of WBSEDCL which is reported  in AIR, 2011, Calcutta Page 64 is very important.  In spite of there is a specific  legal provision of the Hon’ble High Court the OP No. 1 has failed to provide electricity / electric connection to the complainant.  It clearly indicates that the OP Nos. 1 & 2 have committed negligence and deficiency of service.  In view of such position the OP No. 1 is to be directed to provide electric connection  to the complainant at the B schedule property immediately even by taking police help from local police authority (Jagacha Police Station).  Thus, the above noted two points of consideration are decided in favour of the complainant.

In the result, it is accordingly,

ORDERED

That this Complaint Case being No. 160/2020 be and the same is allowed on contest but in part against OPs.

It is held that the complainant is entitled to get a direction upon the OP Nos. 1 & 2  to provide electric connection at the portion of the complainant at B schedule property within 45 days from the date of this judgment or final order even by taking police help from Jagacha Police Station. The OP Nos. 3 to 16 are hereby restrained in the matter of raising any objection / obstacles / resistance   of providing electricity to the complainant in the B schedule property.  Otherwise the complainant is given liberty to execute this award as per law.

            No order is passed relating to compensation and litigation cost.

The parties of this case are entitled to get a free copy of this judgment as early as possible.

Let this judgment / final order be uploaded in the official website of this District Commission immediately.

Dictated & corrected by me

  President