District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hooghly
PETITIONER
VS.
OPPOSITE PARTY
Complaint Case No.CC/196/2023
(Date of Filing:-13.10.2023)
- Sri Partha Sarathi Nath. Residing at
Saheb Bagan, Kazidanga, P.O. Bandel, P.S. Chinsurah,
District:-Hooghly, Pin- 712123.…Complainant
Versus -
- The Station Manager, WBSEDCL, Bandel CCC
Kazidanga More, P.O. Debanandapur, P.S. Chinsurah.
District:- Hooghly, Pin-712123.
- The Divisional Manager, Chandannagar Division, WBSEDCL
Chinsurah Station Road, Rammandir, P.O. & P.S. Chinsurah
District: Hooghly, Pin:- 712102
……Opposite Parties
Before:-
Mr. Debasish Bandyopadhyay, President
Mr. Debasis Bhattacharya, Member
Mrs. Babita Choudhury, Member
PRESENT:
Dtd. 22.11.2024
Final Order/Judgment
Debasis Bhattacharya:- Presiding Member
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the treatment extended by the opposite parties, Power Distribution Company as mentioned above in the matter of changing of the name of the consumer in respect of the existing power connection or giving a new connection instead, the instant case has been filed by the complainant u/s 35(1) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
Both the Opposite Parties belong to the same organization i.e. WBSEDCL.
The fact of the case as depicted by the Complainant, after trimming the unnecessary details is as follows.
Reportedly, the premises in which the power connection (Consumer ID 163008555) originally was installed belonged to One Sri Ashutosh Nath, the deceased father of the Complainant.
However Sri Nath, before his expiry executed a will in respect of the property along with the building mentioned in the schedule incorporated in the complaint petition, in favour of his son, the complainant in the instant case and after the expiry of Sri Ashutosh Nath, the Complainant filed a case vide no. Act 39 (Misc case No.39/2021) for granting the probate of the said will and thereafter the Ld. Court granted probate of the said will in favour of the Complainant.
Consequently on receipt of the probate, the Complainant claims to have been the sole absolute owner of the property and the formalities of necessary mutation and recording of name with the concerned BLRO and local gram Panchayat are claimed to have been done.
Subsequently with a purpose of changing the name in respect of the existing electric connection accordingly, the Complainant approached to OP 1 and produced the relevant supporting documents. OP 3 on examination of the same supplied the necessary stipulated form to the Complainant for change of name. But allegedly at the time of submission of the filled up form along with all documents, OP 1 asked the Complainant to bring No-objection certificate from the concerned Gram Panchayat. But in spite of production of the same no positive step was taken by the OP 1.
At this, the Complainant sent a communication to OP 1 on 22.06.2023 conveying the entire series of events and requesting them for taking necessary action.
Subsequent persuasion by several visits to the OP 1’s office and repeated verbal requests proved to be futile.
On the other hand, OP 1 sent a letter dtd.28.07.2023 to the Complainant seeking Legal heir/successor certificate and NOC duly signed by heirs.
The Complainant here expresses his grievance over the fact that in spite of being the sole owner of the property and being in lawful possession of the said property, the OP denies either to implement the change of the name of the consumer or to give a fresh connection in the name of the Complainant.
Considering this as deficiency of service, causing mental agony and harassment, the Complainant approaches to this Commission with a prayer for imposing directions upon the OPs either to change the name of the consumer by inclusion of the Complainant’s name and exclusion of his deceased father’s name or to give new connection in the name of the complainant, to pay Rs.80,000/- as compensation and to pay Rs.20,000/- as litigation cost.
The Complainant has also prayed for such other relief to which the Complainant is entitled as per law.
The cause of action of the instant case arose firstly on 08.06.2023 when the Complainant applied for change of the name of the consumer.
The Complainant along with his petition has annexed copies of electric bill, death certificate of his father, will executed by his father, grant of probate of will, panchayat tax receipt, legal heir certificate issued by the concerned Gram Panchayat, communications made to the Panchayat, WBSEDCL, Assistant Director, Consumer Affairs & Fair Business Practices, Hooghly Regional Office, communication received from the OP 1, and the Consumer Affairs and FBP Hooghly RO.
Evidence on affidavit filed by the Complainant is almost replica of the complaint petition.
The OPS belong to the same organization i.e. WBSEDCL.
In the instant case the OPS are service providers. Thus the Complainant can be regarded as a consumer.
The Complainant and the OPS are resident/holding office within the geographical jurisdiction of the District of Hooghly and the claim preferred by the Complainant does not exceed the limit of Rs.50,00,000/-. Thus this Commission has both territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction so far as the instant case is concerned.
Now whether there was any deficiency of service and whether the petitioner is entitled to any relief will be discussed in the concluding part of the order as the issues are mutually interrelated.
Defence case
Only OP 1 contested the case by filing written version, evidence on affidavit and brief notes of argument.
The written version in the first six paragraphs uses some conventional terms like ‘not maintainable’, ‘barred by principle of estoppels waiver and acquiescence’, ‘barred by law of limitation’, ‘barred by section 34 of specific Relief Act’, ‘Complainant has no cause of action’, ‘Complainant has no locus standi’ etc. etc. However no non-maintainability petition has been filed by the OP 1. No specific clarifications have been furnished for using these terms in respect of the complaint petition.
Thus this Commission does not find any reason to make any discussion over these issues.
In next seven paragraphs OP 1 simply express their non-admittance of the statements made by the Complainant in his petition in paragraph 1 to 15. These also do not require any elaborate discussion.
In next few paragraphs, OP 1 simply depicts the series of events almost as presented by the Complainant in his petition. OP 1 simply puts stress on the issue that the Complainant did not furnish NOC and legal heir certificate which were required by the OP. In this connection it is mentioned that a letter was issued on 28.07.23, to the Complainant seeking necessary documents as mentioned in the preceding sentence above. It is further mentioned that the tripartite meeting arranged by the Assistant Director, Consumer Affairs and Fair Business Practice did not yield any result.
Lastly OP 1 claims that there was no deficiency of service on their part.
Content of the written version has been reiterated in the evidence on affidavit and brief notes of argument.
Decision with reasons
Materials on records are perused. The will executed by the father of the Complainant, now deceased, clearly indicates that the property described in the schedule of the will has been inherited by the Complainant on the strength of the will. The will when executed was registered in the court of the District Registrar, Hooghly (Sadar) Chinsurah. The probate of the said will was granted u/s 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 by the Ld. District Delegate, Hooghly on 30th January 2023. The Complainant, while applying for change of name of the consumer, appears to have submitted all the documents related to the will along with the no objection certificate of the concerned Panchayat Pradhan before OP 1. Even after that, OP 1 was reluctant to change the name of the consumer or to allow a new connection in the name of the Complainant on the ground that Legal Heir/successor certificate and No-objection certificate (duly signed by the heirs, if any) could not be produced by the Complainant.
The question here naturally arises that what is the sanctity of the will, the probate of which has already been granted by the concerned judicial forum. The will does not appear to have been challenged in any court of law either. It is quite unfortunate that OP 1 is miserably ignorant of the implication of a registered will in respect of which probate has been granted. The Complainant is not supposed to suffer for the ignorance of the OP.
A succession certificate is not necessary if a will is present. A will is a detailed plan for how an individual’s assets are distributed after their death. A succession certificate is only required when there is no will and the deceased’s legal heirs want to inherit their property.
In view of the above, this Commission opines that OP 1 was deficient in service having given no importance to the sanctity of the will in respect of which probate was granted by the concerned judicial forum
Hence, it is
ORDERED
that the complaint case bearing no.196/2023 be and the same is partly allowed on contest.
The Commission hereby directs the opposite party 1 to take necessary steps either to change the name of the consumer in respect of the installed connection in question by exclusion of the Complainant’s father’s (now deceased) name and by inclusion of the Complainant’s name or by installing a fresh connection in favour of the Complainant.
The Commission further directs the opposite party to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental pain and agony and Rs.5000/- towards litigation cost.
The opposite party will be liable to comply with this order within 45 days of the date of this order. In the event of failure to comply with this order the opposite party will pay cost of Rs.10,000/- by depositing the same in the Consumer Legal Aid Account.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties or their authorized Advocates/Agents on record, by hand against proper acknowledgement or sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.
The Final Order will be available in the following website www.confonet.nic.in.
