27.05.2016
MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA, HON’BLE MEMBER.
The instant Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been preferred by the Appellant Nos. 1 & 2/O.P. Nos. 2 & 3 challenging the impugned judgment and order No. 34 dated 28.07.2015 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hooghly, in C.C. Case No. 41 of 2012 allowing the complaint on contest in favour of the Complainant with the direction upon the Respondent No. 1/O.P. No. 1, being the W.B.S.E.D.C.L., Kazidanga Group Electric Supply, Debanandapur to “take suitable arrangements and steps for giving new electric connection to the dwelling house of the Complainant within 30 days” from the date of passing of the impugned judgment.
The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the Respondent No. 2/Complainant submitted petition before the Respondent No. 1/O.P. No. 1 praying for extension of electric connection in his dwelling house, where he is living along with his ailing old mother, after depositing the connection charges to the Respondent No. 1/O.P. No. 1 as per quotation received from the Respondent No. 1/O.P. No. 1.
The Respondent No. 1/O.P. No. 1, even after the aforesaid formalities being duly carried out by the Respondent No. 2/Complainant, did not extend the electricity connection, as prayed for, in the dwelling house of the Respondent No. 2/Complainant. The Respondent No. 2/Complainant, being aggrieved against the aforesaid inaction on the part of the Respondent No. 1/O.P. No. 1, filed the complaint before the Ld. District Forum which the impugned judgment and order relates to.
Heard the Ld. Advocates appearing on behalf of the Appellant Nos. 1 & 2/O.P. Nos. 2 & 3, Respondent No. 1/O.P. No. 1 and Respondent No. 2/Complainant.
The Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant Nos. 1 & 2/O.P. Nos. 2 & 3 submitted that the subject property was in the name of Appellant No. 2/O.P. No. 3, wife of the Appellant No. 1/O.P. No. 2. It was submitted further that none of the Appellants has any objection towards extension of electric connection to the dwelling house of the Respondent No. 2/Complainant provided the said connection should not passed over the subject property.
In this context, Ld. Advocate referred to the Title Suit No. 331 of 2012 filed by the Appellant No. 2/O.P. No. 3 before the Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court, Hooghly where the Ld. Court was pleased to pass an order dated 19.12.2012 restraining the Respondent No. 1/O.P. No. 1 from extending the electricity connection to the dwelling house of Respondent No. 2/Complainant through the route passing over the property of the Appellant Nos. 1 & 2/O.P. Nos. 2 & 3 and that order of injunction was still in force.
Heard the Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 1/O.P. No. 1 who submitted that the Respondent No. 1/O.P. No. 1 is ready to extend electricity connection as ordered by the Ld. District Forum provided a safe and undisputed route for taking the connectivity to the dwelling house of Respondent No. 2/Complainant is identified and offered. In absence of the same, as submitted, the electricity connection could not be given so long. There is, therefore, no deficiency of service on the part of the Respondent No. 1/O.P. No. 1.
Heard the Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 2/Complainant who submitted that the electricity connection which he is entitled to, has not been extended to his house so far by the Respondent No. 1/O.P. No. 1 although, the due charges for service connection as per quotation of Respondent No. 1/O.P. No. 1 have been deposited by the Respondent No. 2/Complainant. This, as submitted, has put the family of Respondent No. 2/Complainant, which includes his old and ailing mother, in extremely embarassing circumstances and harassment.
Perused the papers on record. It appears from the same that the Ld. District Forum passed the impugned judgment and order asking the Respondent No. 1/O.P. No. 1 to provide new electricity connection to the dwelling house of the Respondent No. 2/Complainant within a period of 30 days. If further appears that the proposed route for extending electricity connection was under objection from the Appellant No. 1 /O.P. No. 2 as the connection was contemplated to be taken over the property of Appellant No. 2/O.P. No. 3, his wife. Since the objection was a genuine one for obvious reason, the Respondent No. 1/O.P. No. 1 had reasons for not ensuring the connectivity, which, as it appears, was not taken cognizance of by the Ld. District Forum at the time of passing the impugned judgment and order.
We appreciate the urgency of providing electricity to the dwelling house of the Respondent No. 2/Complainant but, definitely not at the cost of the interest of the Appellant Nos. 1 & 2/O.P. Nos. 2 & 3 and, therefore, refrain from endorsing the view taken by the Ld. Forum below in giving any direction upon the Respondent No. 1/O.P. No. 1 to take any action contradictory to the legal procedure.
Taking into consideration the facts and also the materials on record and also in consideration of the pendency of a civil suit on this issue, we set aside the impugned judgment and order on contest without cost and send back the case on remand directing the Ld. District Forum to adjudicate the case afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to all concerned who may submit fresh evidence in their respective support, if any, particularly on the point of alleged encroachment upon the property of the Appellant Nos. 1 & 2/O.P. Nos. 2 & 3 in the proposed route for extending electric connection to the dwelling house of the Respondent No. 2/Complainant and thereafter pass a reasoned order against the complaint.
All the parties are directed to appear before the Ld. District Forum on 15.06.2016.
