West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/97/2014

Sri Abhijit Samanta. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Station Manager, W.B.S.E.D.C.L. - Opp.Party(s)

27 Feb 2015

ORDER

                                                            DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

 Complaint case No.97/2014                                                                                                Date of disposal: 27/02/2015                               

 BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT :  Mr. Sujit Kumar Das.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mrs. Debi Sengupta.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mr. Kapot Chattopadhyay.

  

 For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff : Mr. D. Mandal, Advocate.

 For the Defendant/O.P.S.                       : Mr. S.K. Bhattacharjee, Advocate.                                   

          

 Sri Abhijit Samanta, S/o Ananda Samanta, Vill- Garhpratapnagar, P.O.+ P.S. Ghatal, Dist- Paschim   

 Medinipur…………..Complainant

                                                           Vs.

1)The Station Manager, W.B.S.E.D.C.L., Ghatal Consumer Care Centre at Ghatal, P.O. & P.S. Ghatal, Dist- Paschim Medinipur.

2)The Chairman, W.B.S.E.D.C.L., Vidyut Bhavan at Salt Lake City, Kolkata 91…………Ops.

         The case of the complainant Sri Abhijit Samanta, in short, is that application for New Electric connection on payment of earnest money dated 20/04/2012 is pending and of that ground an Advocate notice dated 4/10/2012 has been served upon the OP.  Even thereafter, new connection was not granted.  Ultimately, the complainant has come before us with the prayer for necessary direction effecting new service connection with an award of Rs.25,000/- for deficiency of service and Rs. 10,000/- on account of litigation cost against the OP.  In this connection, some documents in Xerox copies, namely, letter dated 13/04/2012 issued by the OP, earnest money deposit dated 20/04/2012, application for new connection dated 4/08/2012, affidavit dated 12/09/2012, Municipal tax receipt No.4526 dated 10/12/2013, Certificate dated 10/08/2013 issued by the Municipality and Advocate’s notice dated 4/10/2012 are produced on behalf of the complainant.

         The Op contested the case by filling written objection challenging that the case is not maintainable for want of cause of action and the same is barred by law.  Besides, the complainant is not the owner of the premises and on that issue, there remains a civil litigation before the appropriate court having jurisdiction to try the case of ownership dispute.  In that connection, the OP has been restrained from giving effect new electric connection to the schedule premises which is

                                                                                                                                                                             Contd……………..P/2

 

                                                                                     - ( 2 ) –

 

 within the knowledge of the complainant.  But the complaint has been filed before this Forum upon suppression of the material facts.  The OP further added in their written objection that until and unless the ownership dispute is decided in favour of the complainants and at the same time the restraining order is lifted up, it is not possible for the OP to provide new connection to the complainant.  Thus, there is no question of deficiency of service as alleged by the complainant.  So, the case should be dismissed.  In this connection, OP submitted certain documents in Xerox copies viz. petition dated 31/07/2012 to the OP Station Master alleging forcible occupation against the complainant, Khatian No1389 showing Bastu Land being Plot No.2213 of Mauza Garh Pratap Nagar, J.L. No.030 within Ghatal P.S. and order sheet dated 28/10/2014 of S.D.M., Ghatal comprising of complain petition filed by Ganesh Chandra Maghi with the prayer for necessary direction so that the Electricity Department may not  provide new electric connection to the complaint Abhijit Samanta, hereof.

          Upon the case of both parties the following issues are framed.

Issues:

1)Whether the case is maintainable in its present from?

2)Whether the complainant has any cause of action for presentation of this petition of complaint?

3)Whether the case is barred by law?

4)Whether the complainant is the owner of the premises for taking new connection?

5)Whether the complainant is entitled for getting relief as prayed for.?

                                Decision with reasons

Issue Nos.1 to 5:

              All the issues are taken up together for discussion as those are interlinked each other for the purpose of arriving at a correct decision in the case.

              Ld. Advocate for the complainant made his argument that the complainant deposited  Rs.200/- as earnest money on 20/04/2012 for getting new electric connection. But till date, the OP is not giving connection to the complainant, even upon strong persuasion therefor.  So, necessary order of direction may be given to the OP/W.B.S.E.D.C.L.  So that the complainant may get new connection as prayed for.

              OP through their Ld. Advocate argued that there is no deficiency of service as the complainant is not a consumer till date.  Despite the fact, the OP made inspection to the premises as to the complainant and it was detected that there is a dispute regarding ownership of the premises to which the complainant is keen for new connection.  Moreover, the OP was prevented

                                                                                                                                                                    Contd………………P/3

 

                                                                            - ( 3 ) –

 

by some residence of the premises in the matter of new connection.  In this regard, the petition with the copy of order sheet of Ld. Executive Magistrate is referred to and submitted that since the dispute regarding possession and order of Executive Magistrate remains-in-force, how the OP can provide new connection to the disputed premises.  In view of the matter, there is no question of deficiency of service as alleged by the complainant and as such the case should be dismissed.

               We have carefully considered the case.  There is a basic point of dispute relating to the possession of the complainant in the alleged premises to which the OP is expected to provide new electric connection as per prayer of the complainant.  In this subject, it is evident that a proceeding of Ld. Executive Magistrate has already  initiated involving the OP/W.B.S.E.D.C.L. for which the prayer of the complainant is held up. 

                In view of the facts and circumstances, we do not find any ground for arriving at a decision that the OP is liable for deficiency of service.  As a result, the case should fail for want of cause of action.  Thus, all the issues are disposed of accordingly.

                        Hence,

                                      It is Ordered,    

                                                         that the case be and the same is dismissed  on contest  without cost.

Dictated & Corrected by me

              

         President                          Member              Member                             President

                                                                                                                  District Forum

                                                                                                              Paschim Medinipur.