DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
MUCHIPARA, BURDWAN.
Consumer Complaint No. 110 of 2015
Date of filing: 05.5.2015 Date of disposal: 23.5.2016
Complainant: Basu Das, S/o. Late Srihari Das, Golahat, PO: Sripally, PS. & District: Burdwan, PIN – 713 103.
-V E R S U S-
Opposite Party: 1. The Divisional Manager, WBSEDCL, Burdwan Division, Frazer Avenue, PO., PS. & District: Burdwan.
2. The Station Manager, WBSEDCL, Burdwan –III CCC, Baranilpur, PO: Sripally, PS. & District: Burdwan.
3. West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd., represented by its Divisional Manager, Burdwan Division, Frazer Avenue, Burdwan.
4. Rajiya Sultana, W/o. Late Sukur Ali Mondal, Golahat, PO: Sripally, District: Burdwan, PIN – 713 103.
Present: Hon’ble President: Sri Asoke Kumar Mandal.
Hon’ble Member: Smt. Silpi Majumder.
Hon’ble Member: Sri Pankaj Kumar Sinha.
Appeared for the Complainant: Ld. Advocate, Tamal De.
Appeared for the Opposite Party No. 1, 2 & 3: Ld. Advocate, Biswanath Nag
Appeared for the Opposite Party No. 4: Ld. Advocate, Ashish Kumar Paul.
J U D G E M E N T
This complaint is filed by the Complainant u/S. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service, as well as, unfair trade practice against the OPs as the OP-1, 2 & 3 did not provide him electric connection at his premises due to objection of the OP-4.
The brief fact of the case of the Complainant is that being an inhabitant of the given address he has been passing his days without electricity. He decided to take electric connection from the OPs-WBSEDCL and obtained an application form for getting new electric connection in his name at his premises by paying cost of Rs.5/- on 24.09.2014. Thereafter he submitted the form to the WBSEDCL on 28.10.2014. Upon receipt of the application the OP-2 surveyed and a quotation was issued on 28.10.2014 directing the Complainant to deposit the consideration amount to the tune of Rs.351/- in cash for security deposit and Rs.400/- in cash for service connection charge. Accordingly the Complainant paid the amount on 08.11.2014 and receipts were issued accordingly. But the OP-2 did not give electric service connection to him till filing of this complaint inspite of payment of the required amount. Due to want of electricity the Complainant and his family members including school going children are facing very much trouble and which also creating disturbance during examination time. As the WBSEDCL did not discharge their duties the Complainant has approached before this Ld. Forum By filing this complaint praying for direction upon the OP-2 to provide new electric connection for domestic purpose at his residential house as per quotation dated 28.10.2014, Rs.50,000/- as compensation due to deficiency in service towards him by the OPs and other reliefs.
The petition of complaint have been contested by the OP-1, 2, and 3 by filing conjoint written version contending that the Complainant had applied for getting a new electric connection in the month of October, 2014 in the prescribed form of WBSEDCL along with documents and thereafter on enquiry a quotation dated 28.10.2014 was served upon the Complainant and the Complainant upon receipt of the same paid quotation amount on 08.11.2014. Erection contractor went there in view of the work order dated 11.11.2014, but the landlady has raised an objection in writing on 18.11.2014. Inspite of that the enlisted contractor went to the premises of the Complainant to effect the connection but the said contractor could not effect the connection due to objection raised by the OP-4, who informed that a Title Suit being no-269/2014 is pending before the Civil Court (Jr. Division), 2nd Court, Burdwan and accordingly the contractor has submitted his report to that effect and as such there is no laches on the part of the OPs and the OPs are always ready to effect electric connection but the Complainant knowing everything filed the instant complaint just to harass theses OPs, which is liable to be dismissed with cost. The OPs have further mentioned that in view of the provision of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Rules and Regulations thereunder if there is any grievance against any bill or the payment made thereof that should be ventilated before the Regulatory Commission or before the person or authority empowered by the said Act and as such having an appropriate and alternative statutory Forum, this ld. Forum has no jurisdiction to try with the instant case. Accordingly prayer is made for dismissal of the complaint.
The petition of complaint has been contested by the OP-4 by filing written version contending that the Complainant is residing at the premises as a tenant and she is owner and landlady of the entire premises, but the Complainant is trying to deny her ownership in respect of the premises and for this reason a Title Suit is filed before the Civil Court, which has been registered as TS no-269/2014 and hence a dispute is existing by and between the Complainant and the OP-4. Inspite of this the OP-4 did not raise any objection if the Complainant gets electric connection at his tenanted portion, but this OP shall not bear any liabilities and responsibilities for that connection because there is already exits one dispute before the Civil Court. According to the OP-4 if any cause will arise for disconnection of the said connection and the charge of electricity may remain as unpaid then this OP will not be responsible, as well as, liable for the said unpaid charge and subsequently any demand may arise from the side of this OP in respect of the said premises then the above-mentioned unpaid charge should not be bar for getting the connection on demand by this OP upon completion of all legal procedure for the new connection. The OP-4 has denied all the allegations as made out in the complaint petition. Accordingly the OP-4 has sought for a reasonable order from this Ld. Forum.
The Complainant has filed written notes of argument. During argument the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant has relied on a specific Section of the Electricity Act, 2003. The Ld. Counsel for the OP-1, 2 and 3 also relied on the Section of the Electricity Act, 2003.
We have carefully perused the record and heard argument at length advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the parties. It is seen by us that the Complainant is residing at a premises where there is no electric connection and for this reason he applied for getting new electric service connection in his name at his premises. He made application, quotation issued by the WBSEDCL, security deposit and service connection charge was paid by him as per direction of the WBSEDCL on 08.11.2014, money receipts issued. The allegation of the Complainant is that inspite of compliance with all legal formalities the WBSEDCL did not provide electric connection as sought for till filing of this complaint. The case of the WBSEDCL is that they are always ready to give electric connection to the Complainant and even after issuing work order the enlisted contractor went at the premises of him, but due to raise objection by the OP-4 verbally, as well as, written correspondence, the WBSEDCL could not give him connection and hence there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their behalf. The case of the OP-4 is that as one Title Suit is pending before the Ld. Civil Court by and between the Complainant and the OP-4, hence the OP has created objection for effecting the service connection in favour of the Complainant. Further objection of the OP-4 is that she will not be responsible and liable to pay any amount towards outstanding dues in connection of the meter of the Complainant in future. Upon careful consideration of the case of the parties we are of the view that as per the Electricity Act, 2003 a tenant of any premises is entitled to get electric service connection in his/her name. In the instant case admittedly the Complainant is a tenant, who is passing his days having no electricity along with his family members consisting of school going children. The Complainant has made application before the WBSEDCL and accordingly an inspection was made. Thereafter quotation was served upon the Complainant by the WBSEDCL and as per quotation the Complainant deposited the security deposit along with charges for service connection as sought for. After making payment work order was issued and enlisted contractor went at the premises of the Complainant for giving him electric connection, but due to objection raised by the OP-4 the contractor could not provide him electric connection. We have noticed that the OP-4 has taken a plea that as a Title Suit is still pending before Ld. Civil Court by and between the Complainant and the OP-4, the OP-4 cannot give permission to the Complainant to get electric connection in his name until and unless the said Suit is disposed of. The Op-4 has claimed herself as an owner of the entire premises and under her the Complainant is a tenant. In respect of such argument of the OP-4 we are of the opinion that inspite of pendency of the Title Suit before the Ld. Civil Court, the Complainant is entitled to get electric connection in his name at his portion as it is an essential service. The OP-4 has failed to show us as to whether there is any status quo order of the Ld. Civil Court or not. Therefore the plea as taken by the OP-4 has no legs to stand upon. The OP-4 has also taken some vague plea in her written version hypothetically; we are not under any obligation to explain the said plea and its remedy in this order, because in that respect no cause of action has yet been arose. In respect of pendency of the Title Suit we are to say that until and unless that Suit is disposed of it cannot be said that the Complainant is not a legal occupier of the premises concern and he has equal right in every inches of his occupied portion of the premises in question and he has also the right to enjoy electricity from a separate meter. Regarding the Title Suit, it has been submitted by the OP-4 that as the Civil Suit is pending, the Consumer Forum cannot adjudicate the present dispute. In this regard we may refer to a judgment reported in CPJ Vol-III, 2004 P-106 (NC), where Their Lordships have held that ‘it should be well understood that under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the Forum/Commission has to decide the matters de hors of all technicalities developed under our Civil/Criminal jurisprudence. This is obvious because the procedure prescribed under the C.P. Act does not provide for application of Evidence Act or the Civil Procedure Code. The dispute is to be decided on the yardstick of reasonable probability on the basis of facts brought on record.’ On the basis of such verdict of the Hon’ble NCDRC we are of the opinion that there is no bar to adjudicate the present dispute of the Complainant though a Title Suit is pending before the Civil Court. Moreover we all know that electricity is very essential in everyday life and in the instant case the Complainant is living without electricity for a prolonged period. In this respect we may refer to the judgment reported in 2001 (1) CLJ 140 where Hon’ble Justice Ashoke Kumar Ganguly has held that ‘the expression ‘life’ under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been construed to mean quality of life and life with all the amenities and benefits in a civilized society. The right to get electricity is certainly covered within the broad sweep of ‘life’ under Article 21.’ His Lordship has further held ‘in the current day realities of growing consumerism electricity is an essential requirement. If a person is willing to obtain supply of electricity on payment of necessary charges to the licensee and the licensee is willing to supply electricity, the right of such person to get electricity must be construed keeping in mind the broad vision of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.’
Having regard to the above-mentioned observation we are of the opinion that the Complainant is very much entitled to get electricity in his name at his tenanted portion.
Going by the foregoing discussion hence, it is
O r d e r e d
that the complaint is allowed on contest without any cost. The OP-1, 2, and 3-WBSEDCL are hereby directed to give electric service connection at the premises of the Complainant and in his name as per application within 30 days from the date of passing of this judgment and the OP-4 is directed not to create any objection at the time of effecting the said service connection. If there is any objection, the WBSEDCL are directed to take police help from the concerned Police Station and in this respect cost shall be borne by the Complainant. In default of compliance of the above-mentioned order, the Complainant will be at liberty to put the decree in execution as per provision of Law.
Let plain copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per provisions of Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
(Asoke Kumar Mandal)
Dictated and corrected by me. President
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Silpi Majumder)
Member
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Pankaj Kumar Sinha) (Silpi Majumder)
Member Member
DCDRF, Burdwan DCDRF, Burdwan
