Order No. -17 Dt.-30/05/2014
The record is placed before us for passing final order.
The hearing arises out of an application u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 filed by Smt. Gita Chhetri (complainant) against The Station Manager, West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company ltd, Oodlabari. (Opposite Party).
Complainant’s case in short is that she has been running a “Fast Food Shop” at OOdlabari bazar after obtaining necessary trade license from the concerned Gram Panchayat for earning her livelihood by means of self employment. Her husband died on 02/06/2008 and he was running a cycle repairing shop named and styled of M/S Pradip Auto Works in the said “Fast Food Shop” of the complainant. On 15/07/2013 the complainant applied to O.P. for new electric connection in her “Fast Food Shop” in commercial category for smooth running of her business. The O.P. after necessary enquiry asked the complainant to make payment of Rs.373/- towards security deposit and Rs.200/- towards earnest money for electric connection. The complainant had deposited the same on 15/07/2013 and 12/08/13 respectively. On 03/09/2013 the O.P. installed meter no. L-237767 and gave electric connection in the shop of the complainant but all on a sudden the O.P. disconnected the said service connection keeping the complainant totally in dark. The complainant rushed to the office of the O.P. and there she was forced to file an application on 05/09/2013 for rectification of her address but the O.P. instead of giving electric connection sent her a letter requesting her to produce further documents. It is alleged by the complainant that despite her compliance with the entire requirements, the O.P. has been illegally withholding the electricity in her shop despite her several requests and thereby the O.P. has committed gross negligence of service and did unfair trade practice. Under this background the complainant has filed this case and p[rayed for the reliefs specified in her petition of complaint.
The O.P. has contested the case by filing a Written Version on 07/09/13 denying and disputing inter-alia the claims and contentions as made by the complainant in her petition of complaint and challenging the maintainability of the case on some technical grounds.
The specific case of the O.P. is that after complainant’s deposit of necessary provisional cost for new service connection, the technical persons of the O.P. went to the spot on 03/09/2013 and at that time one Mr.Rakesh Das, S/O Lt.Prafulla Das of Oodlabari, Subhas Pally raised serious objection and resisted the O.P. men claiming himself to be the owner of the land and premises and showed license, deed etc. On 05/06/2013 he also submitted a written objection. For this the O.P. by its letters dt. 06/09/2013 and 10/09/2013 requested the complainant to submit necessary documents to show that she is the legal occupier of the premises but no document has been submitted by the complainant and that the O.P. is still ready to give connection in the shop of the complainant on fulfillment of its query to the effect that she is the legal occupier of the premises. The O.P. has prayed for the dismissal of the case.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION.
1. Is the case maintainable as alleged?
- Is the complainant a consumer as per provision of Consumer Protection Act.1986?
- Is the O.P. guilty for deficiency of service and for doing Unfair Trade Practice as alleged?
- Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for? If so to what extent?
DECISION WITH REASONS
All four points are taken up together for consideration and decision for the sake of convenience.
Seen and perused the petition of complaint, the W.V. and all other relevant documents and materials on record. We have heard the arguments advanced by the Ld.Lawyer of both sides at a length in full on the previous date.
Although the O.Ps. have challenged the maintainability of the case in its Written Version but this point was not agitated at the time of hearing of the case. Now after due consideration of the materials on record we find nothing adverse against the maintainability of this case. Therefore we find and hold that the case is well maintainable.
Admittedly the complainant had deposited necessary provisional cost of new service connection as per instruction of the O.P. and even the technical persons of the O.P. went to the spot on 03/09/2013 to provide electric connection and they also installed the meter in the shop of the complainant. Therefore we have no doubt that the complainant is a consumer of the O.P. as per Sec. 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
Now after due consideration of arguments of the Ld.Lawyers of both sides the materials on record specially the copy of plaint of T.S.67/13 filed by the complainant on 21/05/14 we find that this title suit has been filed by Jaya Das, W/O of Lt. Prafulla Das and her son Rakesh Das against the complainant Smt.Gita Chhetri in February 2013 for recovery of possession against the tenant Gita Chhetri(complainant). This title suit is still pending as submitted by the Ld.Lawyer for the complainant. On plain reading of the plaint of T.S. 67/13 we find that the plaintiffs have clearly admitted that the defendant Smt.Gita Chhetri (complainant of this case) is their monthly tenant in the suit premises i.e. the place where the complainant Smt.Gita Chhetri has been running her “Fast Food Shop” and where she wants electric connection. In this view of the matter we believe that the only query of the O.P. as to whether the complainant is the legal occupier of the premises has been fulfilled by the complainant by filing the copy of plaint of T.S.67/13 wherein the objector Rakesh Das and his mother have clearly admitted the complainant Smt.Gita Chhetri as their monthly tenant. Therefore we have no hesitation to think that the complainant Smt.Gita Chhetri is the legal occupier of the premises i.e. her “Fast Food Shop” and until and unless she has been evicted therefrom by her landlord by due process of law she cannot be said to be an illegal occupier of the premises i.e. the Shop. Thus we believe that there is no hindrance before the O.P. to give electric connection in the “Fast Food Shop” of the complainant.
It will not be out of place to mention here that the complainant has filed this case with prayer for direction upon the O.P. to give electric connection in the meter no.237776 installed in the shop and not for restoration or reconnection of electric line in the meter installed in the shop of the complainant. Furthermore, the complainant filed the petition u/s 13(3B) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on 30/09/2014 alleging that the O.P. has disconnected the service connection of her shop on 04/09/2013 and for restoration of her electric connection and her prayer was allowed by this Forum on 01/10/2013 but thereafter the complainant took no step for hearing of the petition and she made no further allegation to the effect that order dt. 01/10/2011 was not complied with by the O.P. Moreover the order passed on 01/10/2013 was automatically vacated after 45 days as per provision of Sec 17 of Consumer Protection Regulation 2005 and as the said petition was not mentioned and pressed by the side of the complainant on or before final hearing of the case that petition u/s 13(3B)of the C.P. Act 1986 should be rejected. O.P. in its W/V paragraph 7 has clearly stated that as the complainant did not produce documents as per their request they had no alternative option but to remove the incomplete service line. The meter card bearing no.026237 filed by the complainant shows that meter was installed on 03/04/2013 and on that date the reading of that meter was 00000. If electric connection was given in this meter then the reading of this meter obviously increased for consumption of electricity but that was not done. From the aforesaid disconnection it is clear that electric connection was never given by the O.P. in the meter installed in the shop of the complainant and only service line and the meter was installed by the O.P. in the shop of the complainant. So question of disconnection of electric line and for restoration/ reconnection of electric line doesn’t and cannot arise.
Here we must say that the O.P. had no option save and accept to call the complainant to produce her documents to show that she was/is the legal occupier of her “Fast Food Shop” due to serious objection raised by Rajiv Das both orally and in writing. But the complainant did not produce any documents. Therefore we find and hold that the O.P. had no latches or negligence of its own to give electric connection in the shop of the complainant. Furthermore, the O.P. has installed electric meter in the shop of the complainant after her deposit of provisional cost for new service connection as per instruction of the O.P. Therefore we cannot hold that the O.P. is guilty for gross negligence of service and that the O.P. did “Unfair Trade Practice” as alleged by the complainant.
All points are disposed of.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
that the case is allowed on contest against the O.P. in part but in the circumstances we make no order as to cost.
Complainant’s petition u/s 13(B) of the C.P. Act 1986 dt.30/09/2011 stands rejected.
The O.P. (The Station Manager, West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company ltd, Oodlabari.) is hereby directed to give electric connection in the meter no.L237767 installed in the shop of the complainant at the Oodlabari bazaar within 15 days from this day failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to put this order into execution in accordance with law.
Let copy of this final order be supplied to the parties free of cost forthwith in terms of Sec.5(10) of West Bengal Consumer Protection Act 1987.
