DATE: 16-09-2015

SRI KAMAL DE, PRESIDENT

FINAL  ORDER

The instant consumer case relates to non-supply of electric service connection to the rented premises of the Complainant as per his demand.

Case of the Complainant, as illustrated in the petition of complaint, in short, is that the Complainant and his other family members have been living in the suit premises situated on Plot No. 570, LR No. 1141 of Mouza Parbatipur under Tamluk Municipality bearing holding no. 220 for over 30 years. During his lifetime, the original land owner, Sasibhusan Das used to collect rent from the Complainant and after his demise, his son Mr. Lakshikanta took into his shoes.  The Complainant used to enjoy electricity at the rented house, which stood in the name of Minoti Das, wife of Sasibhusan Das. On 26-12-2014, the said premises has been sold out to Sri Subimal Ghorai and his wife, Smt. Priyanka Ghorai by Mr. Lakshikanta and others.  On 05-01-2015, said Sri Subimal Ghorai and his wife wrote a letter to the Complainant’s mother stating that they were the owners of said premises and they expressed their willingness to collect rent of the said premises. Accordingly, mother of the Complainant sent the rent by M.O., but they refused to receive the same. On 06-05-2015, the OP disconnected the said electric connection to the rented premises of the Complainant, although no electric bill was pending.  Thereafter, on 07-05-2015, the Complainant applied for new electric connection and on 08-05-2015, he paid Rs. 1,883/- to the OP for this purpose.  On 12-05-2015, the OP gave a letter to the Complainant expressing its inability to give new electric connection to him. Complainant’s mother is seriously ill and for such disconnection of electric line, the Complainant and members of his family are passing harrowing time.  Complainant has filed this case for new electric connection to his rented premises besides compensation and litigation cost.  Hence, the case.

OP Station Manager, Tamluk Customer Care Centre, WBSEDCL entered appearance and contested the case by filing WV contending inter alia that the instant complaint is not maintainable in its present form and term of prayer.  It is the case of the OP that Sri Subimal Ghorai on 23-04-2015 submitted an application to Tamluk Customer Care Centre vide receipt no. 157 seeking temporary disconnection of service line for plastering/renovation of the said premises to avoid risk of life and property.  After scrutiny of official records, it was found that the said domestic connection bearing customer ID 222013069 stood in the name of Sri Subimal Ghorai himself and there was no outstanding due against said customer ID.  Since the customer of the said connection himself wanted temporary disconnection of the service line, that too for plastering/renovation purpose for safety purpose, it was disconnected as per norms of WBSEDCL.  On 07-05-2015, Sri Sibu Ghorai applied for new electric connection vide application no. 2001796656 seeking a connected load of 780 watts.  It was found that the premises where Sri Sibu Ghorai was seeking new electric connection was the same premises which was consuming electricity from the electricity connection of consumer ID 222013069 stood in the name of Sri Subimal Ghorai.  On 08-05-2015, Sri Subimal Ghorai submitted an application to Tamluk Customer Care Centre vide receipt no. 258 dated 08-05-2015, raising objection against effecting service connection to the Complainant.  In his application, Sri Subimal Ghorai stated that the house was in a very dilapidated state, unfit for human dwelling and that he wanted to do some renovation and plastering works for proper maintenance of the said house which would not be possible if electric connection existed over there.  In his application, Sri Subimal Ghorai further stated that if electric connection was provided to the said premises and if any accident took place for want of renovation causing loss of life and property, then the OP would be solely responsible for such accident.  DM, Purba Medinipur and SDO, Tamluk were apprised of the matter by the OP on 12-05-2015 under cover of its Memo Nos. TCCC/159 and TCCC/160, respectively, and the matter was followed up with them through subsequent letters. The matter was also brought to the notice of its higher authorities by the OP vide Memo No. TCCC/NS/162 on the very same day.  After careful examination of all facts and documents the competent higher authority of WBSEDCL came to the conclusion that Sri Subimal Ghorai had only given a self-declaration that the premises was in inhabitable condition, there was no certificate from the competent authority in this regard.  Accordingly, a letter was issued to Sri Subimal Ghorai vide Memo No. TCCC/448 dated 01-07-2015 intimating him about the decision of the higher authorities of the OP.  Also, one letter has been issued to the Chairperson, Tamralipta Municipality with necessary documents vide Memo No. TCCC/447 dated 01-07-2015 with a request to cause inquiry into the matter and give his valuable comments.  OP submits that there is no deficiency in service on its part.  It is ever willing to effect electric connection to anyone if one applies for the same with proper documents.  OP is duty bound to ensure safety of human being as well as property.  In terms of Sec. 44 of the Electricity Act, the OP cannot be held liable for any deficiency in service if the situation remains out of the control of the service provider.  OP cannot take the risk of effecting service connection to the premises of the Complainant as the premises is in a dilapidated condition and there is every possibility of loss of human life in case new service connection is provided to the complainant.  OP has prayed for dismissal of the instant complaint case.

Point for discussion

Whether the Complainant is entitled to get electricity at his tenanted premises as described in the petition of complaint, or not?

Decision with reasons

It is an admitted position that the Complainant, including his ailing mother and other members of his family, have been living in the suit premises for the last 30 years.  It also appears that one Sasibhusan Das, since deceased, was the original owner of the suit premises and after his demise, his sons, namely, Sri Lakshikanta Das and others have sold the suit property to Shri Subimal Ghorai and his wife, Smt. Priyanka Ghorai.  It further appears that on 05-01-2015, said Shri Subimal Ghorai and Smt. Priyanka Ghorai, in their capacity as new owners of the property in question, wrote a letter to the Complainant’s mother expressing their desire to receive rent in respect of the tenanted room of the Complainant.  So, it appears that the status of the Complainant in the suit premises as that of a bonafide tenant remains undisputed. 

It is the truism of law that once a tenant, always a tenant and a tenant cannot be evicted from his possession and/or occupation of the suit premises without resorting to due process of law.  It is not forthcoming before us whether any litigation is pending in between the Complainant and Shri Subimal Ghorai & Smt. Priyanka Ghorai regarding the premises in question and above all, if any status quo order/injunction is in force that would inevitably tide the hands of the OP to effect the electric service connection to the rented premises in question.

It also appears that the Complainant, on 07-05-2015, applied for new electric connection for a connected load of 780 watts vide application no. 2001796656.  Quotation money was also received by the OP from the Complainant for this purpose on 08-05-2015. Quite naturally, in terms of The Electricity Act, 2003, OP had a bounden duty to effect the desired service connection to the rented premises of the complainant within 06-06-2015, which they did not do.

OP has come up with a case that the premises in question is in a dilapidated condition and chances of loss and life and property looms large in case such service connection is effected to the premises in question.  It is also stated from the side of the OP that Shri Subimal Ghorai, new land owner submitted an application to Tamluk Customer Care Centre on 08-05-2015 raising objection against effecting service connection to the premises of the Complainant and he also stated that the house was in a dilapidated state, not suitable for human use and the owner of the building also expressed his desire to undertake renovation and plastering works for proper maintenance of the house which would not be possible if electric connection existed overthere. 

It also appears from materials on record that the OP intimated the entire matter to the DM, Purba Medinipur and SDO, Tamluk officially for the first time on 12-05-2015 seeking valuable advice from there end, but no response has been received from their side. 

It is a fact that, Shri Subimal Ghorai and Smt. Priyanka Ghorai have not been made parties to this case. Be that as it may, it also appears that Chairperson, Tamrralipta Municipality was also informed about the bone of contention from the side of the OP vide Memo No. TCCC/447 dated 01-07-2015.  We find on record a photocopy of Memo being no. 1084 dated 22-08-2015 of the Chairman of Tamralipta Municipality, addressed to the OP stating that as per S.A.E. report, the said holding bearing no. 220 of Ward No. 13 requires only plaster in some places of the wall and the building is not so damaged which might cause accident.  We know that Municipality or Corporation is the competent authority to decide whether a particular building is condemned or not.  It appears that Shri Subimal Ghorai and Smt. Priyanka Ghorai, new land owners, did not apply before the Chairman, Tamralipta Municipality for declaring the building condemned.  Accordingly, this Forum is constrained to say that the OP exercised its power beyond its jurisdiction in holding that the building in question is in a dilapidated condition and if electric supply is given, then there is every possibility of loss of human life. As stated hereinabove, a distribution licensee of electricity has not been vested with the power to declare a building safe/unsafe for human living. 

We find that Divisional Manager, Tamluk Division, WBSEDCL formed a four-men committee to enquire into the matter and the said committee reported that the premises was not under inhabitable condition, i.e., the premises was not fit for human dwelling.  First of all, it is not clear to us under what authority/provisions of the Indian Electricity Act, such a committee was formed to pass comment about the physical condition of the dwelling house in question.  Moreover, when Shri Subimal Ghorai and Smt. Priyanka Ghorai did not come up with cogent documentary evidence from the competent authority to vouch for their contention as regards poor structural condition of the building in question, what prompted him to suo mottu form the said committee without taking the Complainant on board, is indeed doubtful. Clearly the WBSEDCL sought to arrogate unto itself the power of another statutory authority, i.e., the Tamralipta Municipality, which has got no legal sanctity. Moreover, Tamluk Customer Care Centre, WBSEDCL is directly a party in this case.  Neutrality of the report is not beyond question, as it is also contradicted by the version of the Chairman of Tamralipta Municipality.  Accordingly, we cannot place any reliance on such report of the WBSDCL. 

It is apparent that the Complainant used to enjoy electricity at the said premises before disconnection of service line by the OP till 06-05-2015 and there is no dispute as regards his status as the tenant under Shri Subimal Ghorai and Smt. Priyanka Ghorai.  That apart, there is nothing on record to show that any status quo order/injunction from a competent Court of Law is in force in respect of the premises in question as on this day. So, it cannot be said that the Complainant is not entitled to the intended new electric service connection at his rented dwelling premises.

It requires no emphasis that all disputes between a landowner and a tenant comes within the purview of West Bengal Premises Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 2002, and as we find, the OP encroached into the domain of another statutory authority overlapping its own jurisdiction.  Accordingly, we direct the OP to provide electric service connection to the Complainant’s premises subject to payment of requisite fees, charges and compliance of necessary formalities, if any.    

Hence,

ORDERED

That the C.C. No. 46/2015 be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP.  The OP is directed to provide electric connection to the Complainant within 40 days hence or within a fortnight from the date of payment of requisite fees/charges and compliance of necessary formalities, if due/not complied with as of today, whichever is earlier.  The OP shall also be liable to pay compensation and litigation cost to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 4,000/-, respectively, to the Complainant within 40 days from the date of this order. In case the OP neglects to comply with this order in to within the stipulated time framed as above, the Complainant would be at liberty to execute this order in accordance with law in which case, the OP shall be liable to pay fine @ Rs. 50/- per diem from this day till compliance.