: J U D G M E N T :
This is a case under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Ac, 1986. The Aadvocate, Anup Ganguly practising in Krishnagar Judge Court has filed this complaint against Station Manager and Additional Manager, W.B.S.E.D.C.L., Krishnagar. He also impleaded his relative Shakti Prasad Ganguly, Krishnagar as OP No. 3.
OP No. 3 has taken electric connection from the OP No. 1 and the open line / wire was hanging over the house of the complainant. Several requests were made to the OPs, but the said open line was not removed. GD Entry No. 1261/14 dtd. 23.01.14 was lodged. The complaintU/S 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was filed in a criminal court for assaulting the wife of the complainant and also for abusing her.
The matter was also reported to the SP, Nadia in writing. The wife of the complainant was humiliated on 30.03.14. Hence, there was loss of reputation of the complainant and his wife. The OP is responsible for such harming of reputation, hence, compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- was prayed and for fire in the line, compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- was prayed in the complaint.
Opposite party filed his written version on 30.11.14 challenging the contention of the complainant. Maintainability of the petition and the jurisdiction of this Forum have been challenged. Hanging condition of the electric wire was also denied. It has been denied by the OP No. 3 that he was illegally running AC Machine. There was no residential house at the time of the installation of electric line to OP No. 3, Shakti Prasad Ganguly. Construction was done later on at the vacant place without informing the OP No. 1 & 2. The OP No. 1 & 2 received complaint regarding fuse problem and the service was disconnected temporarily when wire caught fire.
At the present moment there was no hazard or danger as the said line was removed from this original place/position and hence, the complainant has no fear of danger from the electric line. There was no negligence on the part of the Ops.
OP No. 3 filed a separate written version on 15.01.15. At Para- -13 of the said petition it has been mentioned that on the basis of the order of the Hon'ble High Court in the writ petition No.12577 (W) 2014 the electric service line has been shifted after the intervention of the DM, Nadia. Hence, OP No. 3 should be exempted from any liability. The claim of Rs. 7,00,000/- made by the complainant is exorbitant and untenable.
From the pleadings of the parties the following points are framed.
POINTS FOR DECISION
- Point No. 1: Is the complainant a consumer under the OP?
- Point No. 2: Has the OP No. 1 & 2 caused any damage and loss of reputation to
the complainant and his wife?
- Point No. 3: Has the OP No. 3 any liability?
- Point No. 4: What relief the complainant is entitled to get?
REASOND DECISIONS
For the purpose of brevity and convenience all the points are taken up together for discussion.
It is admitted position that the complainant, Anup Ganguly is a consumer of OP No. 1.
Now the question is whether the OP No. 1 & OP No. 2 have caused any damage or loss of reputation of the complainant and his wife who is also an advocate.
It is clear from the documents that Ld. C.J.M. was moved and he was pleased to send the application of Anup Ganguly / complainant to the I.C., Kotwali P.S. Sri Narayan Chandra Das of Krishnagar Town C.C.C., W.B.S.E.D.C.L. was the name of the accused.
In spite of our request the complainant could not produce the documents regarding the action taken by I.C. or Ld. C.J.M. against Sri N. C. Das, A.E. & S.M. The date of alleged incident was 31.03.14. The time was between 04.00and 4.30 pm. A long argument had been advanced for the OP and the complainant. There was mental agony caused by the OPs to the complainant and his wife it is submitted. It has also been accepted that the OP No. 3 did not cause any damage to the complainant. The electric line belongs to OP No. 1 & 2. We have gone through the municipal documents showing exclusive possession of the complainant at holding No. 55/1, Surja Kanta De Podder Lane. We have also perused the LR documents and daag No. 9383 and the deed No. 6014902 dtd. 11.09.1961. We have also perused the deed No. 7959 /05 dtd. 24.10.05. It is not disputed that the property belongs to the complainant. We have perused the letter dtd. 03.06.13 addressed to OP No. 2 by the complainant. We have also gone through the letter addressed to the Assistant Engineer and Station Manager (N.C. Das) on 14.03.13 by the wife of the complainant. The letter dtd. 29.12.13 addressed to Station Manager was written by Anup Ganguly, the complainant. The prayer was made for shifting the line, service connection wires was hanging dangerously and loosely on the premises of the complainant. This letter dtd. 17.01.14 was written by Ld. Advocate Indra Narayan Patra. On 01.04.14 Divisional Manager was intimated about the facts of the case. Then again on 06.02.14 N.C. Das was informed regarding notice of Shakti Prasad Ganguly (OP No. 3). We have perused the electric bills and also the intimation letters to the I.C. Kotwali being G.D. No. 1261/14 dtd. 30.03.14 showing the facts that hanging wire caught fire dangerously and OP No. 3 did not take any steps or came forward to help.
We have meticulously gone through the affidavit-in-chief filed by the complainant on 30.03.15. The opposite party did not file any affidavit. We have seen the interrogatories on behalf of the OP on 28.04.15 and replies thereon. On 28.04.15 interrogatories were filed by OP No. 3 against evidence-in-chief against PW-1, Anup Ganguly on 27.06.15 reply was given to the interrogatories. The complainant has replied 14 points. The complainant has denied that the OP No. 3 has been residing in the paternal house. OP No. 3 has no paternal house. It is also forthcoming that the fire was extinguished by the local people hence, fire brigade was not called. It would be unreasonable to state that OP No. 3 colluded with OP No. 1 & OP No. 2 because the discretion lies with the OP No. 1 & OP No. 2 by which direction and side the electric line would be taken. Thus, we hold that OP No. 3 has no liability to hold the compensation to the complainant. We further hold from the analysis of the evidence documentary and oral that OP No. 1 was not sincere enough to change the direction of the live electrical wire. It is only with the direction of the Hon'ble High Court and with the interference of DM the electrical line was shifted from the residential premises of the complainant.
The complainant should not have constructed the first floor connecting the live wire intact which was running over the premises of the complainant. The complainant should have waited till the decision of the Hon'ble High Court. The complainant had contributory negligence on his part to construct a room keeping the line wire inside passing through two walls of the dwelling room. Thus the complainant invited the risk of electrocution. God has saved him and his wife.
Ld. Advocate for the OP has argued Section 14 of the L.R. Act which debars the complainant from claiming any compensation as the plot is unpartitioned. Our attention was also drawn to West Bengal Electricity Supply Code, 2004 regulation 4.0.1 but the same reference would not be help the OP No. 1 in any way.
From the facts and circumstances of the case it is clear that the OP No. 1 did not take necessary shift to receive the line and till the Hon'ble court passed order.
The Station Manager, D.L. Roy Road, power house Krishnagar Nadia was responsible for the fire which caught inside the room of the complainant hence we find that the OP No. 1 was negligent and deficient in service. The claim made by the complainant is exorbitant.
We have considered the judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission delivered on 09.07.15 in the matter of Dr. Uttamkumar Samanta Vs. Tata Teleservices Ltd. and Ors. in FA No. 515/2015, wherein the Hon'ble National Commission has directed us to guard against disproportionate demand of the complainant.
So we hold that the compensation of Rs. 5,000/- would be sufficient to compensate the mental agony of the complainant and hence we hold that the OP No. 1 shall bear the compensatory amount of Rs. 5,000/- along with cost of Rs. 1,000/- as cost of filing the case.
Hence, all the issues of disposed of.
It is,
ordered,
that the case CC/2014/88 be and the same is allowed on contest with cost of Rs. 1,000/- and dismissed against the OP No. 2 & 3.
OP No. 1 is directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation + Rs. 1000/- as cost of the suit i.e., in total Rs. 6,000/- to the complainant by sending a bank draft within 15 days from the date of passing this judgment. In case of default of payment the interest @ 8% per annum would be charged upon the OP No. 1 from the 16th day till the date of realization.
Let a copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.
