Consumer Complaint No. 37 of 2016
Date of filing: 09-03-2016 Date of disposal: 21-09-2016.
Present :
Sri Asoke Kr. Mandal, Hon’ble President,
Smt. Silpi Majumder, Hon’ble Member,
Sri Pankaj Kr. Sinha, Hon’ble Member,
Mr. Ashoke Paul, S/o. Late Shib Narayan Paul, resident of 9,
Ramkrishna Road, Ranisayar North, Town, P.O., P.S. &
Dist.-Burdwan, Pin-713101. Complainant.
VERSUS
- WBSEDCL, Customer Care Centre, Sector-1,
Power House Complex, Burdwan, Pin-713101,
represented by its Station Manager/ Assistant
Engineer.
- WBSEDCL, having its divisional office at Burdwan
Urban division, Frazer Avenue, Power House, Burdwan,
Pin-713101, represented by its Divisional Engineer.
- Pradyut Khan, S/o. Late Parbati Charan Khan, residing
at present 88 J.N. Mitra Lane, Para Pukur, P.O.-Burdwan,
P.S.-Burdwan Sadar, Dist.-Burdwan, Pin-713101.
- Smt.Rina Khan, W/o.Pradyut Khan, residing
at present 88 J.N. Mitra Lane, Para Pukur, P.O.-Burdwan,
P.S.-Burdwan Sadar, Dist.-Burdwan, Pin-713101. Opposite Parties.
Appeared for the complainant : Ld. Advocate Debdas Rudra.
Appeared for the Opposite Party No.1 & 2 : Biswanath Nag
Appeared for the Opposite Party No. 3 & 4 : Ld. Advocate Balaram Gupta.
JUDGEMENT
This is a case U/s 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 for an award directing the O.P. No.1 & 2 to effect electric connection in the name of the complainant taking police help on requirement, directing the O.Ps. to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental pain, agony and harassment and to pay Rs.20,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant.
-2-
The complainant’s case in short is that the complainant is a monthly tenant in respect of the premises situated in the ground floor of two storied building standing in R.S. Plot No.2676, L.R. Plot No.14116 under Khatian No.1556 within the Mouja- Bahir Sarbamongala, Dist.-Burdwan, having J.L. No.42, Ward No.2 and holding No.11 of Burdwan Municipality, consisting of two bed rooms, one kitchen, two Privy, two varandas etc.
The O.P. No.3 & 4 are the present owners and landlords of said premises by purchasing the same. The complainant with his family members, has been living in said premises paying monthly rent. The O.P. No. 3 & 4 took several attempts to oust the complainant illegally, as such the complainant was forced to file the Title Suit No.123/2014 in the 2nd. Court of Ld. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Burdwan for declaration his tenancy right in the premises. The O.P. No.3 & 4 also have filed another T.S. No.260/2014 to evict the complainant from the premises in question. Both the suits are pending in said court. The complainant with his family members has been living there without any electricity facing very much inconvenience. Insptie of several requests the O.P. No.3 & 4 did not take any steps to provide electricity in said premises. Getting no alternative, applied for new electric connection in said premises before the O.P. No.1 & 2. The O.P. No.1 & 2 on the basis of said application made enquiry and issued a quotation dated 8.2.2016 in favour of the complainant for an amount of Rs.2,287/-. The complainant deposited the said quotation money on 9.2.2016 in cash and the O.P. No.1 & 2 issued money receipts being No.0770928 & 0770929 dated 9.2.2016 in favour of the complainant. But inspite of several requests, they have not installed the new electric connection in the premises of the complainant. The complainant was forced to send a legal notice dated 23.2.2016 through his Ld. Advocate requesting the O.P. No.1 & 2 to install the electric connection in the premises of the complainant. Inspite of service of said notice the O.P. No.1 & 2 did not take any steps even they have made no reply of such notice. This act of the O.P. No.1 & 2 clearly shows the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of O.P. no.1 & 2. On enquiry, the complainant has come to know that the O.P. No.3 & 4 raised objection against the installation of electric connection in the rented premises of the complainant. As per provisions of law the O.P. Nos. 3 & 4 have no right to do so. For the illegal acts of the O.Ps. the complainant, has been suffering mental pain, agony and harassment and has been forced to come before this Forum. So the complainant is entitled to get compensation as well as cost of litigation. Hence this case with the prayer as mentioned above.
The O.P. No.1 & 2 contested the case by filing joint written version while stating inter-alia that the complainant has no cause of action, the case is not maintainable in this Forum, the case is barred under the provision of Electricity Act, 2003 and the allegations made in the complaint against these O.P. No.1 & 2 are false and baseless.
It has been further stated by these O.Ps. that the complainant applied for new electric connection in the premises as mentioned in the complaint, in prescribed form of WBSEDCL, on
-3-
the basis of said application the answering O.Ps. issued quotation, the complainant paid the quotation amount in time, on receipt of such quotation amount the O.P. No.1 & 2 passed necessary work order to the enlisted contractor M/s. Nandi & Others, but as the O.P. No.3 through his Ld. Advocate named Balaram Gupta by sending a notice asked the O.P. No.1 & 2 not to effect the proposed connection in the name of the complainant, M/s. Nandi & Others failed to effect the proposed connection and the answering O.Ps. intimated the facts of raising objection by the landlord Sri Pradyat Khan and failing to effect connection, to the complainant by a letter dated 10.3.2016 thereby asking him to produce the proper way leave, one Sibani Paul on behalf of the complainant received said letter on 15.3.2016, the O.Ps. are ready to effect the new connection but the complainant knowing everything just to harass these O.Ps. filed the instant case. It has been further stated by these O.Ps. that in view of the Provisions of Section-42(5) & (6) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Rules and Regulations made there under, if there is any grievance against the supply of electricity, that should be ventilated before the Regulatory Commission or before the person or Authority empowered by the said Act and as such this Forum has no jurisdiction to try this case. It is therefore, claimed by these O.Ps. that the case is liable to be dismissed with cost against them.
The O.P. No.3 & 4 by filing joint written version contested this case while stating inter-alia that the complainant has no prima-facie case, the electrical connection is not the part of tenancy in the premises, as such there is no obligation on the part of the O.P. No.3 & 4 to provide electricity in the rented premises, the complainant has already taken shelter in the Civil Court by filing Title Suit No.123/2014 in the 2nd Court of Ld. Civil Judge (Jr. Dvn.), Burdwan for declaration of his tenancy, During pendency of said Civil Suit before the Civil Court, the complainant is not entitled to file this complaint before this Forum, the O.P. No.3 & 4 became the owners of the premises in question subsequently, by purchasing the same, the complainant has been occupying the premises since the time of predecessor-in-interest of these O.Ps. as monthly tenant, at the time of inception of tenancy, there was no contract to provide electric connection in the rented premises and as such erstwhile owner did not provide any such connection in the rented premises, only two rooms was laid out to the complainant but the complainant forcibly occupying kitchen, bathroom etc., the complainant filed a T.S. No.123/2014 for declaration of his tenancy right in the premises, on the other hand the O.P. Nos. 3 & 4 have filed T.S. No.260/2014 in the Civil Court for eviction of the tenancy right, both the suits are still pending, the complainant has already been served notice U/s. 6(4) of W.B. Premises Tenancy Act for eviction from the said premises and as such the complainant has become a statutory tenant in the premises in question, the complainant never asked the O.Ps. to supply any service connection in the premises, these O.Ps. never received any amount from the complainant and as such the complainant is not consumer under these O.Ps., the complainant illegally and without knowledge of the O.Ps. made application to obtain service
connection in the premises, as such the O.P. No.3 & 4 raised objection and it was the incumbent duty of the complainant to obtain permission from landlord prior to obtaining service connection in his tenented premises. It is therefore claimed by these O.Ps. that the case is liable to be dismissed with cost against these O.Ps.
-4-
DECISION WITH REASON
In support of the contents of the complaint petition, the complainant has relied upon the photocopies of certificate dated 24.3.2015 issued by the Councilor, Burdwan Municipality, affidavit sworn by him dated 26.3.2015, the certificate of the Ld. Advocate of the O.P. Nos 1&2 named Biswanath Nag dated 26.3.2015, quotation dated 9.2.2016, money receipts showing payment of quotation money, legal notice dated 23.2.2016 issued by Ld. Advocate Subrata Ghosh and evidence on affidavit submitted by the complainant himself.
On the other hand O.P. No.3 & 4 has relied upon the evidence on affidavit sworn by O.P. No.3. From the side of the O.P. No.1 & 2, no evidence has been adduced.
We have carefully perused the evidence on record and the contents of the pleadings. The case that the complainant is a monthly tenant in respect of the premises situated in the ground floor of two storied building standing in R.S. Plot No.2676, L.R. Plot No.14116 of Khatian No.1556 within the Mouja-Bahir Sarbamongala, Dist.-Burdwan, having J.L. No.42, Ward No.2 and holding No.11 of Burdwan Municipality, the O.P. No.3 & 4 became the owners and landlords of said premises by subsicuent purchase, the complainant with his family members has been living in said premises paying monthly rent, the complainant has filed Title Suit No.123/2014 in the court of Ld. Civil Judge, Junior Division, 2nd Court, Burdwan for declaration his tenancy right in the premises alleging that the O.P. Nos. 3&4 have been trying to oust the complainant from the premises in dispute, the O.P. No.3 & 4 also have filed another T.S. No.260/2014 to evict the complainant from the premises in question and both suits are still pending and the complainant has already been served notice U/s. 6(4) of W.B. Premises Tenancy Act for eviction from the said premises and as such the complainant has become a statutory tenant in the premises in question, is not denied by the contesting parties. The complainant has brought further case that the complainant with his family has been living in the premises without any electricity and as such the complainant himself and his family members have been facing very much inconvenience but in spite of repeated requests the O.P. Nos. 3 & 4 did not take any steps to provide electricity in the premises of the complainant, so getting no alternative the complainant made application for new electric connection before the O.P. No.1 & 2, in his tenanted premises, but till this day the O.P. No.1 has not installed the new electric connection in the premises of the complainant in spite of deposit of quotation money & several requests and the complainant was forced to send a legal notice dated 23.2.2016 through his Ld. Advocate requesting the O.P. No.1 & 2 to install the electric connection in the premises of the complainant.
The O.P. Nos. 1&2 has brought a specific case that the complainant made an application to get new electric connection in his tenanted premises before them, on the basis of said application, they issued a quotation dated 8.2.2016 for an amount of Rs.2,187/-, the complainant deposited said quotation money on 9.2.2016, to provide new electric connection in the complainant’s
-5-
premises, the O.P. No.1 & 2 . issued necessary work order to the enlisted contructor M/s. Nandi & Others but as the O.P. No.3 through his Ld. Advocate named Balaram Gupta, by sending a notice, asked the O.P. No.1 & 2 not to effect the proposed connection in the name of the complainant, M/s. Nandi & Others failed to effect the proposed connection and the O.P. Nos. 1&2 intimated the facts of raising objection by the landlord Sri Pradyat Khan and failing to effect connection, to the premises of the complainant, by a letter dated 10.3.2016 thereby asking him to produce the proper way leave but the complainant has failed to supply the same. In support of this specific case, the O.P. No.1 & 2 have adduced no evidence.
So from the pleadings it is clear that the complainant is the occupier of the premises as mentioned above and he made application to get new electric connection in the premises before the O.P. No.1 & 2 and in that connection he has deposited the quotation money of Rs.2,187/- but till this date electric connection has not been given in the premise. As per provisions of law the O.P. No.1 & 2 have liability to give new electric connection in the premises of the applicant within one month. The evidence on record clearly shows that a long period has been elapsed to give electric connection in the premises of the complainant. It is needless to say that the pendency of T.S. filed by the complainant for declaration of his tenancy right and also the pendency of T.S. filed by the O.P. No.3 & 4 for eviction of the complainant from the premises, will not create any hindrance in giving electric connection in the premises of the complainant. To challenge the plea of O.P. No.1 & 2 as mentioned above the Ld. Advocate for the complainant has relied upon the observations of the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta made in Mrinal Kanti Ganguly Vs. The Chairman, WBSEDCL & Ors. case vide WP 8632(W) of 2015, the observations of the Hon’ble State Commission made in CESC Ltd. Vs. Usha Devi Agarwal and Another case reported in 2004 2CPC 93; 2004 2CPJ 328 and upon the observations of the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta made in Sk.Samsud Doha Vs. WBSEDCL & Ors. case reported in 2012 0AIR (Cal) 2005; 2012 5 CHN 772; 2012 3 CLJ 153 and 2012 0 Supreme (Cal) 388. On the other hand the Ld. Advocate for the O.P. No.3 & 4 have relied upon the provision of Section-37 of WBPT Act and upon the observations of the Hon’ble State Commission, West Bengal made in Anjali Majumder Vs. Tiyasa Mukherjee & Other case reported in [2012] 1 WBLR (CPSC) 662.
In the case of Smt. Anjali Majumder Vs. Smt. Tiyasa Banerjee and Ors, the Hon’ble State Commission has been pleased to observe that the question of delivery in service does not arise, if any, proceeding is pending before the Civil Court involving the dispute of complaint case filed before the Consumer Forum. This observation of the Hon’ble State Commission is not applicable here as in the Civil Court the complainant being plaintiff filed Title Suit No.123/2014 for declaration of his tenancy right and by filing this case the complainant has made a prayer against the WBSEDCL and its Customer Care, Sector-1, praying to get new electric connection in the premises occupied by himand and as such the issue involving in said Title Suit and issue involving in this case are not idetical. The provision of Section-37 of WBPT Act, has been elaborately discussed in several cases by the Superior Courts. In Mrinal Kanti Ganguly Vs. The
-6-
Chairman, WBSEDCL & Ors. case the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta has been pleased to observe that it is well settled that right of life includes right to live with essential services including electricity and the WBSEDCL Authorities have a statutory duty to supply electricity to anyone who is in occupation of a premises within its area of supply and it is not duty of the WBSEDCL Authorities to decide on the legality of the possession of a person seeking electricity connection to a premises and even a trespasser who is in settled possession, is entitled to avail electricity under the provisions of Electricity Act, 2003. In Samsud Doha Vs. WBSEDCL & Ors. case the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta has been pleased to observe that the Act of 2003 clearly lays down a scheme wherein it is the duty of the licensee to take out the necessary works to ensure that the supply of electricity reaches the doorsteps of the applicant, in the event, licensee finds that there are obstruction or difficulties in effecting supply and the applicant is unable to provide way leave, it would be the duty of the licensee to undertake necessary works as provided under Part-VIII of the Electricity Act, 2003 read with Rule-3 of the Works of Licensees Rules 2006 to ensure that such supply is effected, mere objection of owner/occupier to lay such works on his land cannot be a reason for the licensee to shirk its statutory duty to supply electric energy which are essential service and an ingredient of the fundamental right to life of an individual in modern-day society. The Hon’ble High Court (Cal) has been pleased to observe further that in the event of objection by a owner or occupier of land over which works are required to be laid is received, the licensee is required to obtain permission from the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police or any other Officer authorized by the State Government in that behalf in terms of Rule 3 of the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006 and also pay compensation, if any, to such owner or occupier in terms of the provisions of Section 67 of the Act, 2003 read with Rule 3 of the aforesaid rules and also has been pleased to observe that the Regulation 3.2.1 of 2010 cannot override the mandatory statutory duty of the licensee to supply electric energy to an applicant (who has failed to provide way leave) without resorting to its statutory power of setting up electric works in terms of Section 67 of Act 2003 read with Rule 3 of the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006. The Hon’ble State Commission in CESE Ltd. Vs. Usha Devi Agarwal and Another case has been pleased to observe that the lady or her son cannot resist the CESE Ltd. from installation of a separate meter in favour of the present respondent as she is a lawful tenant of the premises in question.
In view of our above discussions it is admitted by the contesting parties that the complainant is the occupier of the premises in question, the contesting O.P. No.3 & 4 have admitted that the complainant is a statutory tenant in the premises in question, the O.P. No.1 & 2 has admitted that the complainant made application/ formal application to get new electric connection in his name for the premises in question and he has deposited the quotation money on 9.2.2016. It is/was bounded duty of O.P. No.1 & 2 to effect the electric connection within the stipulated period. The O.P. No.1&2 has not effected the electric service in complainant’s premises only on the plea that the O.P. No. 3 & 4 have raised objection and the complainant has not submitted
-7-
the proper way leave. In view of the above observations made by the Superior Authorities of this Forum, it is clear that the plea as taken by the O.P. No.1 & 2, does not stand. Nothing is coming to show that the O.P. No.1 & 2 took attempt to effect the electric connection in the premises of the complainant invoking the provisions of Section-67 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and Rule 3 of the Works of Licensees Rules 2006. So there is clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of O.P. No.1 & 2.
The complainant is the consumer of O.P. Nos. 1&2 but he is not the consumer of the O.P. Nos. 3&4. So the complainant is not entitled get any relief against the O.P. Nos. 3&4.
For the fault of O.P. No.1 & 2, the complainant has been suffering mental pain, agony and harassment and he has been forced to come before this Forum to get relief. So, the complainant is entitled to get compensation and litigation cost along with the award directing the O.P. No.1 & 2 to effect the electric connection in the premises occupied by him. Accordingly, the case succeeds. Fees paid is correct.
Hence, it is Ordered
that the complaint be and the same is allowed against the O.P. Nos. 1 & 2 but the same is dismissed against the O.P. Nos. 3 & 4 on contest,
that the complainant do get an award directing the O.P. No.1 & 2 to effect electric connection in the name of the complainant at the premises situated in the ground floor of two storied building standing in R.S. Plot No.2676, L.R. Plot No.14116 under Khatian No.1556 within the Mouja- Bahir Sarbamongala, Dist.-Burdwan, having J.L. No.42, Ward No.2 and holding No.11 of Burdwan Municipality resorting to its statutory power of setting up electric works in terms of Section 67 of the Electricity Act, 2003 read with Rule 3 of the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006, on requirement, to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental pain, agony and harassment and to pay Rs.3,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant within 30 days from this day, failing which the awarded total amount will carry interest @ 12% p.a. till the date of realisation and the complainant will be at liberty to put this order in execution in accordance with law.
Let copies of this final order be supplied to the parties free of cost.
Dictated and corrected by me. (Asoke Kr. Mandal)
President
(Asoke Kr. Mandal) D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan
President
D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan
(Silpi Majumder) (Sri Pankaj Kr. Sinha)
Member Member
D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan
