DATE OF FILING : 16.05.2014.
DATE OF S/R : 22.07.2014.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 23.07.2015.
Sri Sambhu Charan Show,
son of late Krishna Pada Show,
resident of Allamohan Das Road Kashipur Mart, P.O. & P.S. Dassnagar,
District Howrah,
PIN 711105. …………………………………………………………… COMPLAINANT.
Versus -
1. The Station Manager,
Dassnagar, WBSEDCL,
Baltikuri 33/11, KV, Sub Station Complex, H.I.E. Baltikuri,
Howrah.
2. Sri Subodh Dey,
son of late Sashi Bhusan Dey,
resident of Allamohan Das Road Kashipur Mart,
P.O. & P.S. Dassnagar,
District Howrah,
PIN 711105...……………………………………….………OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
Hon’ble President : Shri B. D. Nanda, M.A. ( double ), L.L.M., WBHJS.
Hon’ble Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
Hon’ble Member : Shri A.K. Pathak, L.l.b., ( Retired Railway Officer ).
F I N A L O R D E R
- This is an application U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 filed by the petitioner, SambhuCharanShow, praying for a direction on the o.p. no. 1 namely the Station Manager, Dasnagar, WBSEDCL, to install the electric connection of the complainant in the schedule mentioned property situated at Allamohan DasRoad, Kashipur Mart, P.O. & P.S. Dasnagar, District Howrah, and also directing the o.p. no. 2 not to obstruct such installation and also for compensation.
- The case of the petitioner is that he is a monthly premises tenant under the o.p. no. 2, Subodh Dey, in respect of one west facing room, dalan used as kitchen with asbestos roof measuring about 200 sq. ft. with joint bath and privy situated at Allalmohan Das Road, Kashipur Mart, P.S. Dassnagar, District Howrah, at a monthly rental of Rs. 125/- according to English calendar month. The o.p. no. 2 with evil intention to evict the petitioner unlawfully filed a civil suit. This petitioner resides in the suit property along with his family memberswithout electricity and he applied for new connection before the o.p. no. 1 and deposited security charges and service charges amounting to Rs. 921/-. The o.p. no. 1 came to install the electric connection but could not carry out the job due to objection raised by o.p. no. 2 and later on when the o.p. nol. 1 came for such installation then they were severely threatened by o.p. no. 2.The petitioner is a bonafide consumer under the definition of this C.P. Act, 1986 and the o.p. no. 1 is guilty of gross negligence for not installation the electric connection which is also unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on their part. Hence the case.
- The o.p. no. 1 contested the case by filing a separate written version denying the allegations made in the complaintpetition and submitted that the claim petition is not maintainable and the petitioner suppressed thematerial facts. The o.p. no. 1 further submitted that the petitioner applied for a new connection on 06.3.2014 and as per the quotation the petitioner deposited quotation mentioned amount on 14.3.2014 and physical inspection was done by the employees of o.p. no. 1 but the present landlord objected to such connection and the lawyer of the o.p. no. 2 served notice on o.p. no. 1 mentioning T.S. No. 5 of 2014 pending in Civil Court regarding occupation of premises. The o.p. no. 1 is a creature of statute has no intention to withhold electric connection to the intending consumers and always ready and willing to give connection and there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part as could be noticed from the case of the petitioner.
4. The o.p. no. 2, Subodh Dey, contested the case by filing a separate written version denying the allegations against him and submitted that the petitioner is only a monthly tenant and he has no right, title and interest over the schedule mentioned property and he is an unlawful occupier and the Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the case as on the self same matter Title Suit pending before the Civil Court an eviction suit and thus this case be dismissed.
5. Upon pleadings of parties the following points arose for determination :
Is the case maintainable in its present form ?
Whether the civil suit for eviction is a bar to this case ?
Whether the petitioner has any cause of action to file the case ?
Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.,
WBSEDCL Authority ?
Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
6. All the above issues are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity for the discussion and to skip of reiteration. When the point of maintainability and issue regarding maintainability of civil suit for eviction is dealt with then this Forum keeping in mind the submissions of the ld. counsel for both sides as well as keeping in mind the present position of law and the averments in the petition as well as in the written version, finds that in the instant case the petitioner filed this case as a consumer of WBSEDCL which provides electricity to individual being a statutory authority. Consumer disputes means a dispute where the person against whom a complaint has been made, denies the allegations contained in the complaint. This Forum has jurisdiction and such jurisdiction is extended only as regards to consumer disputes. In order to prove his case the petitioner has to prove that he is a consumer and his dispute is a consumer dispute and the facts of the case supported by available evidences proved the same and the case is well maintainable before this Consumer Court.
7. Regarding civil suit pending before civil court this Forum finds that the civil suit pending before the civil court is a suit for eviction wherein ld. Civil Judge is to decide whether the plaintiff in the civil suit would be entitled to a decree of eviction against this petitioner who is a defendant in that case. The issues in civil suit are quite different from the issues which are to be dealt with in this case. It is true that the Consumer Forum cannot exercise jurisdiction over sub judice matter but in the instant case this Forum has to decide here whether the petitioner is entitled for installation of new electric connection and in the civil suit for eviction different issues are to be decided by the Civil Judge. Thus the issues in both the cases being not directly and substantially related, there is no bar before this Forum to deal with this case even though a previous suit is pending. Actually the object of such principle is to prevent the court of competent jurisdiction from simultaneously trying two parallel cases in respect of the self same matter in issue. In the instant cases the matter in issues being different. There is no bar to decide this case.
8. As regards installation of new electric connection, this Forum scrutinizes oral as well as documentary evidences and finds that the petitioner, Sambhu Charan Show, is a tenant in the suit premises as could be noticed from the rent receipts filed by him before the Forum and it is also noticed that he has deposited the service charges and security charges before the WBSEDCL Authority, who is also ready and willing to render service connection to the petitioner. In his averment of the petition, the petitioner submitted that the o.p. no. 2 along with anti socials obstructed the o.p. no. 1 for such installation and thus this Forum finds no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of o.p. no. 1 for which they could be asked to compensate the petition. As regards o.p. no. 2 being the owner of the property stating that civil case has been pending before the Ld. Civil Judge and so the petitioner is not entitled to new electric connection, this Forum is of opinion that even an unlawful occupier is also entitled to water and electricity from this statutory authority and what to speak of a monthly premises tenant who produced his tenancy receipt before this Forum. Thus, it is not wise on the part of the o.p. no. 2 to obstruct the statutory authority to install fresh electric connection in the tenanted premises of the petitioner.
In view of above discussion and findings this Forum finds that the petitioner has succeeded in proving his case and entitled to reliefs as prayed for except compensation against o.p. no. 1 alleging negligence , unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 285 of 2014 ( HDF 285 of 2014 ) be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.Ps. with costs against o.p. no. 2.
The petitioner is entitled to electric connection in his tenanted premises and the o.p. no. 1 is directed to install the electric connection in the tenanted premises of the petitioner within 30 days from the date of this order and the o.p. no. 2 is directed not to obstruct such installation of electric connection and the o.ps. failing to comply the order of the Forum, the petitioner would be at liberty to put the final order of the Forum in execution after the stipulated period.
The petitioner is entitled to cost of Rs. 1,000/- to be paid to him by the o.p. no. 2 within 30 days from the date of this order for their illegal obstruction in the act of o.p. no. 1 and failing to pay the cost, the petitioner would be at liberty to put the order in execution.
As regards compensation prayer this Forum passes no order in view of discussion in the finding portion.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( B. D. Nanda )
President, C.D.R.F., Howrah.
