This case has been filed U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 filed by the complainant, Ramlal Choudhury.
The complainant’s case in short is that the complainant purchased one shop room from Opposite Party No.2 & 3 in the ground floor of Bina Complex at Khalisani Ditch Road by a registered deed No.1255/16 dated 22.4.2016 under Chandannagore Municipal Corporation, Ward No.14 and holding No.420. Previously the petitioner was a tenant at the said premises under the opposite party No.2 & 3 with commercial electric connection vide consumer ID No.090020 in the name of the complainant.
The petitioner had to surrender the said electric connection in terms of compromise with the owner of the property/holding i.e. opposite party no.2 & 3. The petitioner’s purchase deed stipulated that the petitioner will have to take electric connection directly from WBSEDCL in his own shop room. The owner of the complex will not provide any place for installation main switch and meter except petitioner own shop room.
The petitioner put up an application before the opposite party No.1 for new commercial electric connection in his own shop room on 2.5.2016. After inspection the shop room the WBSEDCL issued a quotation on 20.7.2016 amounting to Rs.968/-. But in the said quotation there was not mentioned the place where the main switch and meter will be installed. The petitioner requested three times the Station Manager to inform the petitioner about the connection. Thereafter, the opposite party No.1 issued a fresh quotation on 17.2.2017 and the petitioner deposited the quotation amount of Rs.1,179/- on 20.2.2017. But opposite party No.1 by sending two letters informed the petitioner that he is unable to install the main switch. The petitioner rushed to the opposites party No.1 along with two letters and requested to provide electric connection but till date electric connection has not been provided to the complainant.
Thereafter the complainant filed a petition before the Regional Grievance Redressal Officer, Hooghly Region, WBSEDCL, Administrative Building, Chinsurah on 8.7.2017, which was heard on 21.7.2017 and the said petition was rejected vide Memo No.RM/HR/73-CND/795 dated 18.8.2017. The petitioner could not start any business in the shop room for want of electricity which was too much hardship to a handicapped senior citizen. Finding no other alternative the complainant has filed this instant case before this Forum for relief with a prayer to direct the opposites to provide the electric connection in the petitioner’s shop room.
The opposite party contested the case by filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegations as leveled against him. This opposite party submits that petitioner applied for new service connection on 17.2.2017 though application bearing No.5001511788 and deposited the quotation amount on 20.2.2017 against receipt No.130602562780 and accordingly the WBSEDCL sent representatives for installation of meter but unfortunately there was no space for installation of meter even no main switch were installed at common space and for that reason the WBSEDCL became helpless to effect the connection from bus-bar and accordingly one system generated letter issued to the complainant on 28.4.2017. This opposite party also submits that as the petitioner’s premises is one of the part of a multistoried building namely ‘Bina Complex’, meter of all individuals connection to be installed at easy accessible space through bus-bar of newly developed electrical infrastructure but the petitioner intends to install his individual commercial connection within this commercial space or outside space of his commercial unit/shop from the source of another infrastructure which is not possible considering safety occupiers of the building.
The opposite party No.2 & 3 also contested the case by filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegations as leveled against them. These opposite parties submit that as the Regional Grievance Redressal Officer rejected the representation of petitioner, there is no scope to file this case. There is no cope to ask the opposite party No.2 & 3 to provide electric connection in the schedule property, petitioner has no relation with opposite party No. 2 & 3 in the matter of electricity which is in the domain of opposite party No.1. Sum and substance of the case is that as per order of Hon’ble Court in connection with the C.O. No.244/11 a Solenama was filed in T.S. No.34/04 and a sole decree was passed on 29.3.2011. It has been categorically mentioned in para-3 of the compromise petition that complainant will at his own risk draw electric supply as per rules and law of Indian Electricity Act and other rules of WBSEDCL for taking commercial supply. More over commercial line so existed will be disconnected by the complainant at his own risk. The complainant will be solely responsible in the matter of drawing electric supply to his new purchased property and opposite party No.2 & 3 shall have nothing to do in this regard. Therefore, the opposite party No.2 & 3 cannot help the petitioner in any manner whatsoever with reference to new electric service connection. Hence, the case.
Points for consideration
- Whether complainant is a consumer?
- Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for?
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
Decision with reasons
Point No.1: In the light of discussion it is admitted that the complainant purchased one shop room from opposite party No.2 & 3 in the ground floor of Bina Complex at Khalisani Ditch Road by a registered deed No.1255/16 dated 22.4.2016 under Chandannagore Municipal Corporation, Ward No.14 and holding No.420 and the complainant was a tenant at the said premises under the opposite party No.2 & 3 with commercial electric connection and his consumer ID No. was 090020 in the name of the complainant. Thereafter the complainant surrendered the said electric connection terms of compromise with the owners of the property i.e. the opposite party No.2 & 3. After perusing the record it transpires from the prayer of the complainant that the complainant put up an application before the opposite party No.1 for new commercial electric connection in his own shop room. But after inspecting the shop room opposite party No.1 issued the quotation on 20.7.2014 amounting to Rs.968/- but in the said quotation there was not mention the place where the main switch will be installed. It is stipulated in the deed of purchase that the complainant will have to take electric connection directly from WBSEDCL Ltd. in his own shop room and opposite party No.2 & 3 will not provide any place for installation of main switch meter except complainant’s own shop room. The complainant requested three times to the Station Manager to inform the complainant regarding electric connection. Thereafter the opposite party No1 issued fresh quotation and the quotation amount of Rs.1179/- has been deposited by the complainant. But the opposite party No.1 by letter informed the complainant that the opposite party No.1 is unable to install the main switch. The complainant under C.P. Act is a consumer and opposite party being the service provider is responsible to provide service to the complainant.
The opposite party No.1 in his written version stated that the meter of all individuals’ connection to be installed at easy accessible space through bus-bar of newly developed electrical infrastructure.
Point No.2: It appears from the complaint that the complainant filed this case before this Forum having pecuniary jurisdiction.
Point No.3: Regarding point No.3 whether the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for? From the materials on record it transpires that the complainant is a consumer under Section 2(1) d(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant here is the consumer of the opposite party No.1 as the complainant deposited quotation amount firstly on 20.7.2016 amounting to Rs.968/- and a fresh quotation amount of Rs.1,179/- on 20.2.2017. So, the complainant is entitled to get service from opposite party No.1.
Point No.4: Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
The complainant installed a main switch with complete electric wiring and earthing in his own shop room. But he received two letters from opposite party No.1, Station Manager, Chandannagore-II, CCC. The opposite party No.1 alleged that main switch was not installed by the complainant. Complainant submitted written representation dated 31.3.2017, 24.4.2017 and 15.5.2017 requesting the opposite party No.1 to provide complainant with electric connection but in vain. Thereafter the complainant submitted an application before Sri Swapan Kumar Maji, State Information Officer, Senior Manager (HRA), Burdwan Zonal Office, WBSEDCL. But no response from their ends. The complainant is a handicapped person and he earns his bread from this shop room but for want of electricity he could not run his business. So, there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party No.1. Having no other alternative the complainant compelled to file this case before this Forum.
It is the responsibility of the opposite party No.1 to arrange electrification for his shop room but though the complainant paid the quotation money he had to suffer monetary loss and mental agony. It is known to all that without having electricity the human life is miserable. The complainant ventilated his grievance in various occasions but the opposite party did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. It is submitted by the opposite party No.1 that they could not install meter either in the shop room or through electric post to be fixed in front of the shop room and further submitted that the actual dispute and difference as regards supply of electricity in the shop room of the complainant exists in between the complainant and opposite party No.2 & 3. The only reason, not to provide electricity to the complainant submitted by the opposite party No.1 that the complainant demands for providing electricity from the source of other infrastructure. The opposite party No.1 also dispute and assailed that the meter of all individuals’ connection to be installed at easy accessible space through bus-bar of newly developed electrical infrastructure. So, the opposite party No.1 is became helpless to provide electricity to the complainant and prayed that this case has no merit and deserved to be dismissed.
Hearing of the argument advanced by the advocates of the parties and perusing the case record we are in the opinion that the complainant has proved his case by adducing cogent documents/evidence.
So, the prayer of the complainant is allowed. However, considering the facts and circumstances there is order as to cost. There is no relief against the opposite party No.2 & 3 claimed by the complainant. With the above mentioned observation the complaint case thus disposed of accordingly. Hence, it is
Ordered
that the C.C. No.203/2017 be and the same is allowed on contest against the opposite party No.1 with a litigation cost of Rs.6,000/- and dismissed against the opposite party No.2 & 3. The opposite party No.1 is directed to provide electric connection to the complainant in the schedule premises shop room situated in the ground floor of Bina Complex, Ward No.14 and holding No.420/G, P.O. & P.S.-Chandannagar, Dist.-Hooghly within 30 days from this date of order. At the event of failure to comply with the order, opposite parties shall pay cost of Rs.50/- for each day delay, if caused on expiry of 30 days by depositing the amount in the Consumer Legal Aid Account.
Let the copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.
