Date of Filing: 18-04-2016 Date of Final Order: 16-03-2017
Sri Gurupada Mondal, President.
This is a petition under Section 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 praying for a direction for installation of electric connection at the Complainant’s premises, Rs.25,000/- for deficiency in service, Rs.50.000/- for mental pain and agony and Rs.10,000/- towards the cost of the proceedings.
It is the case of the Complainant in short is that the Complainant purchased 8 decimals of land for residential purpose from Dipak Kumar Roy on 12/07/2010 and thereafter, the Complainant constructed a residential building with tin-shed roof on his own land in his own capacity and started living there. The Complainant completed his electric wiring in the said premises for installation of new electric connection and applied for the same in the month of January, 2014. Thereafter, the Complainant deposited a sum of Rs.400/- for service connection and Rs.591/- for security deposit to the O.P. No.1. Thereafter, the Complainant went to the Office of the O.P. No.1 several times for installation of electric connection but inspite of repeated requests, the electric connection was not given in favour of the Complainant. As a result, the family members of the Complainant were suffering irreparable loss and injury in the darkness.
Further, it is the case of the Complainant is that on 20/10/2014 and on 07/12/2015, the Complainant filed a written complaint before the O.P. No.2 for installation of electric connection in his premises. The Complainant wrote several times to the O.Ps with a request to install electric connection in his premises but electric connection was not given. Accordingly, the Complainant gave a legal notice to the O.P. No.1 through his Ld. Advocate Sri Umapada Rakshit. The O.P. No.1 received the said notice on 09/03/2016 but all efforts went in vain.
Accordingly, the Complainant has filed the instant petition before this Forum with a prayer for direction to install election connection in the Complainant’s premises alongwith other reliefs.
Notice upon the O.P. No.2 was duly served but the O.P. No.2 did not contest the case. Accordingly, the case was heard ex-parte against O.P. No.2.
The O.P. No.1 has filed written version denying all allegations contending inter-alia that the instant case is not maintainable, the Complainant has no cause of action to file the instant case and the petition should be dismissed as per provision under section 26 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
It is the specific case of the O.P. No.1 is that the Complainant applied for new electric connection in the month of January, 2014 and deposited Rs.991/- on 03/03/2014. Thereafter, the O.P. No.1 engaged one Contractor for installation of electric connection in the premises of the Complainant. The Contractor of the O.P. No.1 visited the premises of the Complainant and found that the Complainant had electric connection in his premises and the same was disconnected and to that effect, the Contractor Sri Dhananjay Kar submitted a report to the O.P. No.1 on 05/11/2014 and for that reason electric connection could not be provided in the premises of the Complainant.
Further, it is the case of the O.P. No.1 is that the Complainant purchased a plot of land alongwith building from one Dipak Kumar Roy on 12/07/2010 with the strength of Sale Deed executed by him and since then, the Complainant was enjoying the electricity from the service connection line of Dipak Kumar Roy but he did not change the service line in his name and due to non-payment of outstanding dues of Rs.82,490/- the said electric connection was disconnected.
It is the case of the O.P. No.1 is that no new electric connection could not be provided in the premises of the Complainant unless the outstanding bills are realized. The Complainant suppressed the said material fact that he was enjoying the electricity from the service connection of previous owner while he applied for new electric connection. The Complainant wrote a letter dated 01/11/2014 informing the Divisional Manager, W.B.S.E.D.C.L, Cooch Behar that he was enjoying the electric connection from the Meter of the previous owner i.e. Dipak Kumar Roy since the date of purchase of the said building alongwith land.
It is the case of the O.P. No.1 is that the Complainant submitted a written application before the Divisional Manager, W.B.S.E.D.C.L, Cooch Behar stating of non-providing electric connection and requested him to take necessary step in this regard and the said letter of the Complainant was forwarded to the O.P. No.1 and the O.P. No.1 informed the O.P. No.2 about the reason for non-providing the electric connection.
It is the case of the O.P. No.1 is that on 20/12/2014 at 2.30 PM, one hearing was held in the chamber of the Divisional Manager, W.B.S.E.D.C.L, Cooch Behar in presence of the Complainant, D.K. Roy and Assistant Manager (HRA), Cooch Behar and in that meeting D.K. Roy was directed to pay the outstanding bill and the Complainant was informed as to why electric connection was not installed in his premises. The Complainant has filed the instant case suppressing the material fact. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, the O.P. No.1 prays for dismissal of the case with cost.
In the light of the contention of both parties, the following points necessarily came up for consideration.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the Complainant a Consumer as per Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?
- Have the Opposite Parties any deficiency in service and are they liable in any way?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief/reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
We have gone through the record very carefully. Perused the entire documents in the record and also heard the argument as advanced by the parties at length.
Point No.1.
The Complainant viz. Manik Chandra Saha applied for electric connection before the O.P. No.1 and the O.P. No.1 directed him to deposit a sum of Rs.991/- towards the charges of service connection as well as security deposit. In compliance of the said order, the Complainant deposited the said amount in favour of the Station Manager, W.B.S.E.D.C.L, Tufanganj CCC i.e. the O.P. No.1. The O.P. No.1 is the only authority to supply electric connection to the customer. Accordingly, we hold that the Complainant is the consumer as per provision of the C.P. Act, 1986. Therefore, this point is decided in favour of the Complainant.
Point No.2.
The Complainant is a resident of Tufanganj under Cooch Behar district and the O.P. No.1 is the Station Manager, W.B.S.E.D.C.L., Tufanganj CCC. Therefore, this Forum has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. The Complainant prays for relief of Rs.85,000/- as well as installation of electric connection. Therefore, this Forum has the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. Accordingly, this point answered in favour of the Complainant.
Point No.3 & 4.
Both the points are taken up together for the convenience of discussion as well as the points are related with each other.
Admitted fact is that the Complainant Manik Chandra Saha purchased a plot of land alongwith residential building from one Dipak Kumar Roy. Thereafter, the Complainant applied for installation of electric connection in the said premises. It is also the admitted fact that the Complainant deposited service connection charge of Rs.400/- and security deposit of Rs.591/- in favour of the O.P. No.1 as per direction of O.P. No.1. It is the fact that the Complainant was not given electric connection inspite of depositing of Rs.991/- in favour of the O.P. No.1. It is evident from the case record that the Complainant made several communications with the O.P. No.1 for installation of electric connection in his premises but no electric connection was given by O.P. No.1.
It is the case of the O.P. No.1 that he engaged one Contractor viz. Dhananjay Kar for installation of electric connection in the premises of the Complainant and to that effect, he submitted a report to the O.P. No.1 alleging that the Complainant had service connection in his premises but the same was disconnected.
From the documents as filed by the Complainant and from the admission of the O.P. No.1, it reveals to us that the Complainant purchased a plot of land alongwith 1080 square feet of a building with two finished tin shed rooms with varanda. Three unfinished rooms and some vacant land. It is further evident to us from the sale deed of the Complainant that there were two finished tin shed rooms along with varanda. Therefore, it can be presumed that the said two rooms were inhabitable condition. The said property was purchased by the Complainant on 12/07/2010. As per report of the contractor, Sri Dhananjoy Kar submitted on 05/11/2014 before the O.P. No.1 that there was a electric service connection in the premises of the Complainant and the same was disconnected. The said property was purchased by the Complainant on 12/07/2010 and the Complainant filed application for new connection in the year of 2014. There was electric connection in the premises of the Complainant. But the Complainant did not take no objection from the O.P. No.1 before purchase.
It is not the case of the Complainant that he did not get possession of the house during the period of purchase and filing of petition for new electric connection in his house hold property. The case before the Forum is not required to prove strictly. It requires preponderance of probability. Therefore, it can be presumed that the Complainant started living in the newly purchased premises immediately after its acquirement and as such the Complainant consumed the electricity installed in the name of the erstwhile owner, Sri Dipak Kumar Roy.
It is established from the documentary evidence that the Complainant purchased the premises from Sri Dipak Kr. Roy along with electric connection and the present Complainant consumed the electric connection installed in the name of Sri Dipak Kr. Roy.
We are at one with the view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that a person or licensee is not duty bound to pay the electric bill consumed by other person.
From the documents it is well established that the Complainant purchased the vacant land along with two finished tin shed rooms with varanda and three unfinished rooms from Dipak Kr. Roy by virtue of sale deed on 12/07/2010 and he started living there on. It is also established that there was electric connection in the premises as taken by the erstwhile owner, Dipak Kr. Roy and the Complainant consumed the said electric connection from 12/07/2010. The Complainant consumed the electricity while he was residing in the said premises. The said electric connection in the name of Sri Dipak Kr. Roy was disconnected due to non-payment of electric bill. Therefore, the Complainant as well as the previous owner are duty to bind to pay the electric charge as consumed by him.
In this case, the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for. Both the points are disposed off accordingly.
Hence,
Ordered,
That the present case be and the same is dismissed on contest against the O.P. No.1 and Ex-parte against the O.P. No.2. There is no order as to cost.
Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied to the parties concerned by hand/by Registered Post with A/D forthwith, free of cost, for information & necessary action, as per rules.
Dictated and corrected by me.
