15………….28.04.2021……………..
Today is fixed for delivery of judgment/final order.
Final order containing 9 pages is ready for delivery. It is sealed, signed and delivered in open Forum/Commission.
It is,
ORDERED
That this complaint case and same is allowed on contest. It is held that complainant is entitled to get new electric connection (domestic urban) at his Advocate’s Chamber at premises No. NTS Road. Subhasgram, Chak Harinavi, PS – Sonarpur, Kolkata – 147. The O.Ps. are directed to provide the electric connection (domestic urban) at the Advocate ‘s Chamber of complainant at premises No. NTS Road. Subhasgram, Chak Harinavi, PS – Sonarpur, Kolkata – 147 within 60 days from the date of this order otherwise the complainant is given liberty to execute this order as per law. The complainant is also entitled to get cost of Rs. 10,000/- and compensation of Rs. 10,000/- from the O.Ps. The O.Ps. are directed to pay the cost and compensation amount within 2 months from the date of this order otherwise the complainant is given liberty to execute this order as per law.
Thus this complaint case be and same is disposed of on contest.
Let a copy of the order be sent / supplied at free of cost to the parties concerned.
The Final Order will be available in the following website www.confonet.nic.in.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
SOUTH 24-PARGANAS
AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 144
C.C. NO._35_ OF 2021
DATE OF FILING DATE OF ADMISSION DATE OF FINAL ORDER
12.03.2021 16.03.2021 28.04.2022
Present : President : Debasish Bandyopadhyay
Member : Jagadish Chandra Barman
Member : Sangita Paul
COMPLAINANT : Sri Uttam Kumar Halder,
S/o – Sri Tapan Halder, residing at N.T.S Road, P.O.- Subhasgram, P.S. –Sonarpur, Kolkata – 700147, Dist. – South 24 Parganas.
Versus
O.P/O.Ps : 1. The Station Manager, W.B.S.E.D.C.L, Rajpur CCC-3115500, under Sonarpur Police Station, Kol-700149, South 24 Parganas.
2. The Chairman, W.B.S.E.D.C.L, Vidyut Bhavan, Bidhannagar, Block – DJ, Sector – ll, Kolkata – 700091.
Debasish Bandyopadhyay, President
Brief facts of this case:- The case of the petitioner/ complainant in bird’s eye view is that he is a practicing Lawyer of different Courts of West Bengal and O.P. No. 1 is the Station Master of W.B.S.E.D.C.L., Rajpur CC 3115500 under Sonarpur P.S. and O.P. No. 2 is the Chairman of W.B.S.E.D.C.L., West Bengal and on 22nd day of June, 2019 the complainant applied through online for one new electric connection (domestic) for his Advocate’s Chamber vide application No. 1005081225 but due to unknown reason the quotation was not shown and for that reason the complainant had to submit second application for one new electric connection (domestic) for his Advocate’s Chamber on 25th day of June vide application No. 1005087744 and reference ID No. 104486853 and total quotation amount of Rs. 2,162/- has been paid through online vide transaction ID No. QUCO7685432455 dated 25.06.2019 at 13:24:53 hours. It is alleged that the complainant’s dwelling house / flat in the 1st floor of the building and the Advocate’s Chamber is in the ground floor at the outside of the building and under separate construction. It is the case of the complainant that he did not run Advocate’s Chamber in his 1st floor of the house / flat.
It is further alleged that on 03.07.2019 Station Manager, Rajpur C.C.C, W.B.S.E.D.C.L. has informed to the complainant that there is existing connection in the name of the petitioner in that house premises and so new connection could not be provided for the same building number and same category for the Advocate’s Chamber. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned letter dated 19.07.2019 send by Rajpur C.C.C., W.B.S.E.D.C.L., the complainant has filed a writ application Vide No. W.P. 19613(W) of 2019 but as the Ld. Advocate of the complainant on the date of hearing remained absent the said writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution. It is further alleged that on 3rd February, 2021 after the lockdown due to Covid – 19 virus, the complainant had sent a letter to the O.P. No. 1 for installing new electric connection (domestic) in his Advocate’s Chamber in the above noted address but even after lapse of 1 year 8 months and 15 days and after the payment of quotation amount the O.Ps. intentionally neglecting, avoiding and refusing to install the said electric connection and thereafter on 4th March, 2021 the complainant had sent a legal notice through email to the O.P. No. 1and then on 9th March, 2021 the complainant had made contact with the Station Manager, Rajpur C.C.C., W.B.S.E.D.C.L and came to know that the prayer of the complainant has been sent to the higher authority for approval. It has also been highlighted by the complainant that after full payment of quotation amount for new electric connection (domestic) at the complainant’s Advocate’s Chamber even after 1 year 8 months and 15 days the O.Ps. have been intentionally neglecting, avoiding and willfully refusing to install electric connection and for such illegal activities of the O.Ps. the complainant had suffered huge financial and economic loss, damages, injuries and acute hardship. Under the above notes facts and circumstances, the complainant by filing this CC Case has prayed for immediate installing new connection and payment of compensation due to deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. and also prayed for litigation cost. In support of his case the complainant has annexed a good number of documents (Xerox copies).
On the other hand the O.Ps. have been contesting this case by filing W.V. and the sum and substance of the case of O.Ps. is that on 22.06.2019 the complainant filed an application through online for a new connection under domestic urban category vide application No. 1005081225 dated 22.06.2019 at premises No. NTS Road, Subhasgram, Chak Harinavi, P.S. – Sonarpur, Kolkata – 147 and thereafter the complainant personally visited the office of the O.P. No. 1 with hard copy of the said application in order to pursue for the new connection and then the O.P. No. 1 after making scrutiny of the official documents held that there exist a domestic connection in the name of the complainant hearing consumer ID No. 104245459 at the same premises and the said matter was informed to the complainant vide letter dated 24.06.2019 and O.Ps. expressed their inability to entertain the said application dated 22.06.2019 in terms of W.B.S.E.D.C.L regulation 14 of the notification No. 53/ W.B.S.E.D.C.L. dated 02.04.2013 and regulation No. 13.9 of the notification No. 46/W.B.S.E.D.C.L. dated 31.05.2010. It is alleged that the complainant thereafter approached to O.P. No. 1 and became excited and started to hurl abusive and indecent languages and also caused threat to O.P. NO. 1 with dire consequences. It has further been stated that the O.Ps. vide letter dated 24.06.2019 informed the complainant about their inability to entertain application and thereafter the complainant with malafide intention had come across with the Regional Manager, South 24 Parganas on 24.06.2019 and had made complaint against the O.P. No. 1by giving false and fictitious allegations and threaten the officials with dire consequences and thereafter in order to safe guard the officials of the O.Ps., the O.P. No. 1 lodged a general diary to Sonarpur PS on 26.06.2019. It is further alleged that thereafter the complainant made another application through online on 25.06.2019 being No. 1005087744 without disclosing about the existence of service connection in his name in the same holding. According to the case of the O.Ps. in ordinary course of business in each and every application made through online for new connection, the O.Ps. generate automatic quotation bill as per demanded load and online communication regarding the said bill of quotation is being informed to the applicant immediately through online and accordingly computerized quotation bill was generated in favour of the complainant on 25.06.2019 and thereafter the complainant made payment of Rs, 2,162/- on 25.06.2019 by suppressing material facts. It has also been highlighted in terms of the second application No. 1005087744 dated 25.06.2019, the O.Ps. made an inspection of the said premises on 03.07.2019 in the presence of the complainant and it was concluded that new connection could not be provided due to existence of supply of service in the name of the complainant in respect of the same holding and the said information was duly communicated to the complainant on 03.07.2019. It has been further alleged that thereafter the complainant initiated a criminal complaint case before the Ld. A.C.J.M., Baruipur being No. 624/2019 implicating the officials of W.B.S.E.D.C.L. one false and fictitious ground. It has further been pointed out that the complainant on and from 22.06.2019 used to give threading calls over telephone to the O.Ps. and as a result of which the O.Ps. lodged a complaint on 24.07.2019 before O/C, Sonarpur PS against the complainant and requested the police authority to treat the complaint as FIR and accordingly the said complaint of the O.Ps. was treated as FIR being No. 627/2019 dated 24.07.2019. According to the case of the O.Ps. out of good gesture made further inspection of the said holding of the complainant in the presence of the complainant on 31.07.2019 and observed the existence of a electric meter in the name of the complainant being consumer ID No. 104245459 and the meter No. 105097886 which has been installed / fixed on the wall of the temporarily constructed chamber and for that reason the O.Ps. once again expressed their inability to consider the application of the complainant. It has also been mentioned that the O.Ps. with a view to accommodate the complainant, requested the complainant to furnish some documents but the complainant willfully failed and neglected to comply the same. According to the case of the O.Ps. the complainant with malafide intention has filed multiple proceedings in different courts of law only to harass the O.Ps. For all the above noted reason the O.Ps. have prayed before this District Commission for dismissing this case with heavy cost.
POINTS OF CONSIDERATION
On the basis of the pleading of the parties, the District Commission for the interest of proper and complete adjudication of this case is going to adopt the following points for consideration:-
- In this case maintainable in its present form and in the eye of law?
- Is there any cause of action for filing this case by the complainant?
- Whether the complainant is a consumer in the eye of law?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get the electric connection in his Advocate’s Chamber or not?
- What other relief or remedies is the complainant entitled to get in this case?
EVIDENCE ON RECORD
In order to prove the case the complainant has filed evidence on affidavit by himself and also produced series of documents. Against the evidence on affidavit filed by the complainant questionnaires have been filed by the O.Ps. and reply to those questionnaires also have been given.
On the other hand the O.Ps. to disprove the case of the complainant and to substantiate their case has filed the evidence on affidavit of Malabika Sen of W.B.S.E.D.C.L., Rajpur Sonarpur. Against the said evidence of affidavit questionnaire have been filed by the O.Ps. and accordingly reply has also been given. The O.Ps. also have filed documents in support of their case.
ARGUMENT HIGHLIGHTED BY THE LD. LAWYERS OF THE PARTIES
Regarding this matter it is important to note that the complainant as well as the O.P. have filed their brief notes of argument and in addition to that both sides also have highlighted their verbal submission at the time of argument.
It is the main point of contention and argument of complainant side that the complainant is a consumer and O.Ps. illegally and willfully refused to install electric connection which is gross deficiency in service and for that reason the complainant is entitled to get the relief which has been prayed in this complaint case. Moreover the complainant by referring the decision of the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta which has been passed in W.P. No. 18367(W) of 2019 (Arup Sarkar vs C.E.S.C. Ltd. and others) on 11th February, 2020 argued that Hon’ble Court has been pleased to observe and directed to C.E.S.C. Ltd. to provide the new electric connection in the premises of petitioner under the category of domestic urban within a period of 2 weeks.
On the other hand, the O.Ps. at the time of argument lay emphasis on the oral and documentary evidence and also pointed out that as per W.B.S.E.D.C.L. regulation 14 of the notification No. 53/ W.B.S.E.D.C.L. dated 02.04.2013 and regulation No. 13.9 of the notification No. 46/ W.B.S.E.D.C.L. dated 31.05.2010, the complainant is not entitled to get any second connection in the same building. It is also pointed out that the complainant has his electric connection (domestic) in the said building and for that reason the complainant is not entitled to get any second connection. Ld. Advocate for the O.Ps. also highlighted the effect of splitting load. For all these reasons the O.P. side has prayed for dismissing this complaint case.
DECISIONS WITH REASONS
The first three issues which have been framed of the point of maintainability, cause of action and whether complainant is a consumer in the eye of law, are vital issues and so these three issues are taken up for consideration at first.
In this regard it is important to note that the O.P. side has not challenged the maintainability point by filing any separate petition in this case and the O.P. side has only pleaded this maintainability point in their W.V. but it was neither pressed nor had given any emphasis for hearing the maintainability matter at the initial stage of this case. Considering these aspects and after close scrutiny of the facts highlighted in the pleading and also after scanning the evidence on record finds that this case is maintainable and there is cause of action for filing this case by the complainant. Moreso the complainant has also paid the quotation money of Rs. 2162/- on 25.06.2019 and it has been admitted by the O.Ps. in their W.V. This matter is also reflecting that the complainant is a consumer. It is very important to mention that the O.Ps. have not provided electric connection at the Advocate Chambers of the complainant. All these factors are clearly depicting that the complainant is a consumer in the eye of law and this case is maintainable and there is cause of action for filing this case by the complainant. Thus the first three points of consideration adapted in this case are decided on contest in favour of the complainant.
The point No. 4 which has been adapted for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to get electric connection in his Advocate Chamber situated at premises No. NTS Road. Subhasgram, Chak Harinavi, PS – Sonarpur, Kolkata – 147 or not. For the purpose of arriving at the decision over this issue there is necessity to notice as to whether there is any admitted facts in this case or not. In this regard, on close examination of the pleading of the parties and evidence of the record it appears that there is no dispute on the point that the complainant has deposited quotation amount of Rs. 2162 in favour of the O.Ps. and the said amount has not yet been refunded by the O.Ps. in favour of the complainant. There is no dispute over the issue that the complainant has been residing at premises No. NTS Road. Subhasgram, Chak Harinavi, PS – Sonarpur, Kolkata – 147 and there is Advocate’s Chamber in the same premises but at separate place. There is no dispute over the issue that there is electric connection in the residential flat of the complainant in the same premises at first floor in the name of the complainant. It has also not been disputed by the parties that the complainant and the O.Ps. initiated criminal proceedings against each other and all these criminal proceedings are pending and the main issue for initiating the criminal proceeding by the parties is for not giving electric connection at the Advocate’s Chamber of the complainant. It has not been denied by the O.Ps. and the complainant that there was local inspection conducted by the O.Ps. in relation to install domestic urban meter at the Advocate’s Chamber of complainant and after inspection the O.Ps. rejected the prayer of the complainant and inspite of that the O.Ps. in their pleading has accepted the fact that with a view to accommodate the complainant the O.Ps. once again inspected the said premises and this matter is clearly indicating that there is / was intention of the O.Ps. for providing electric connection at the Advocate’s Chamber of the complainant.
On the back ground of the above noted admitted facts, this District Commission after examining the pleading of the parties and evidence on record finds that the O.P. has adapted the plea that there is chance of splitting of load and on this issue regulation 14 of notification No. 53/ W.B.S.E.D.C.L. dated 02.04.2013 has been pointed out. In this regard it is important to note that for providing the matter the O.P. has not prayed before the Ld. District Commission for expert opinion or for holding local inspection commission by expert. In view of this position the above noted plea of the O.Ps. cannot be accepted. It is also clear that there is gross deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. in the matter of providing new electric connection at the Advocate’s Chamber of the complainant.
The complainant side in support of their case has referred the decision of Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta passed in W.P. No. 18367 of 2019 ( Arup Sarkar vs C.E.S.C. Ltd. & others ) on 11.02.2020 and the Hon’ble Court has been pleased to direct C.E.S.C. Ltd. to provide new electric connection to the petitioner under the category of domestic urban within a period of 2 weeks. Similar view has been adopted by the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta in W.P.A. No. 10534 of 2020 (Sukla Kar vs C.E.S.C. Ltd. & others) and in W.P.A. NO. 12284 of 2021 (Tanuja Bibi vs C.E.S.C. Ltd. & others).
When there is decision of Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta and when the main plea of splitting load according to regulation 14 of notification No. 53/ W.B.S.E.D.C.L. dated 02.04.2013 of the O.Ps. has not been proved, this District Commission has no other way but to decide the point No. 4 adopted for consideration in this case, in favour of the complainant.
As the issue No. 4 has been decided in favour of the complainant, the complainant is also entitled to get other relief such as cost and compensation in this case.
Considering all the above noted factors, this District Commission is of the view that the complainant is entitled to get new electric connection (domestic urban) at his Advocate’s Chamber at premises No. NTS Road. Subhasgram, Chak Harinavi, PS – Sonarpur, Kolkata – 147 and also entitled to get compensation and cost in this case.
So, it is accordingly,
ORDERED
That this complaint case and same is allowed on contest. It is held that complainant is entitled to get new electric connection (domestic urban) at his Advocate’s Chamber at premises No. NTS Road. Subhasgram, Chak Harinavi, PS – Sonarpur, Kolkata – 147. The O.Ps. are directed to provide the electric connection (domestic urban) at the Advocate ‘s Chamber of complainant at premises No. NTS Road. Subhasgram, Chak Harinavi, PS – Sonarpur, Kolkata – 147 within 60 days from the date of this order otherwise the complainant is given liberty to execute this order as per law. The complainant is also entitled to get cost of Rs. 10,000/- and compensation of Rs. 10,000/- from the O.Ps. The O.Ps. are directed to pay the cost and compensation amount within 2 months from the date of this order otherwise the complainant is given liberty to execute this order as per law.
Thus this complaint case be and same is disposed of on contest.
Let a copy of the order be sent / supplied at free of cost to the parties concerned.
The Final Order will be available in the following website www.confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me.
Debasish Bandyopadhyay
President
