DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
MUCHIPARA, BURDWAN.
Consumer Complaint No 45 of 2015
Date of filing: 09.02.2015 Date of disposal: 14.8.2015
Complainant: Sri Shankar Pal, S/o. Late Gangaprasad Pal, Niskinsi Bazar, Near Par Birhata Police Outpost, PO: Sripally, PS. & Dist: Burdwan.
-V E R S U S-
Opposite Party: 1. Station Manager, West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, Burdwan – III CCC, Baranilpur Bazar, PO: Sripally, PS. & Dist: Burdwan, PIN – 713 103.
2. Divisional Manager, West Bengal State electricity Distribution Company Limited, Burdwan (O&M) Division, Monimart, PS. & Dist: Burdwan, PIN – 713 101.
Present: Hon’ble President: Asoke Kumar Mandal.
Hon’ble Member: Smt. Silpi Majumder.
Appeared for the Complainant: Ld. Advocate, Kunal Bakshi.
Appeared for the Opposite Party (s): Ld. Advocate, Biswanath Nag
J U D G E M E N T
This complaint is initiated by the complainant u/S. 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service against the Ops as the Ops did not provide fresh electric connection at his premises.
The brief fact of the case of the complainant is that being a lawful occupier of the premises in question he is residing as a tenant therein not less than 60 years and used to pay rent regularly to his landlord Mr. Sukumar Dutta. The complainant submitted an application seeking for new service connection for domestic purpose at his tenanted premises and accordingly deposited requisite fees for application, security deposit and quotational-connection charge through receipt on 18.10.2014 and 03.11.2014 respectively. The OP-1 through its letter dated 14.11.2014 expressed inability to provide new electric connection on the baseless ground that the landlord had raised objection in giving fresh and new electric connection in the name of the complainant. Immediately after receipt of the said letter the complainant issued a letter on 19.12.2014 through his ld. Advocate wherein it was stated that the complainant is entitled to get separate electric connection in his name in schedule premises without taking any consent of the landlord. Inspite of receipt of the said letter the Ops did not take any step to provide new electric connection as applied by the complainant and kept silent, which itself amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. It is stated by the complainant that he has school and college going son and daughter and also an aged, ailing mother and for such reason he is in dire need of electricity which is also very essential service in modern life. But the Ops violating the provision of law did not effect electric connection in the schedule premises which is an example of deficiency in service on their part. The Ops have no authority or right to deprive the complainant from getting new electric connection on the ground of baseless and unfounded objection from the objector. Due to deficiency in service of the Ops the complainant is suffering from great inconvenience, mental pain, agony, harassment and loss day by day. According to the complainant he is entitled to get fresh and new electric connection without taking permission from his landlord subject to compliance of the formalities of the WBSEDCL. As the Ops did not effect service connection in his name, therefore finding no other alternative he has approached before this ld. Forum by filing this complaint praying for direction upon the Ops for installation of separate and fresh electric connection in his name at the schedule premises without taking consent from the landlord, to pay a sum of Rs. 80,000=00 as compensation due to mental pain, agony and harassment and litigation cost of Rs. 20,000=00.
The petition of complaint has been contested by the Ops by filing conjoint written version wherein it is stated that the allegations as made out in the complaint the same are vague, baseless and concocted. It is stated by the Ops that the complainant has applied for getting a new connection in the prescribed form of WBSEDCL and thereafter quotation was sent to him and he accordingly deposited the requisite application fee, security deposit and service connection charge. Upon receipt of the said amount work order was issued to the erection contractor for execution of the service connection work, but at the time of exe-cution of such work the landlord Mr. Sukumar Dutta raised objection on the ground that there is a Civil Suit, which is pending before the ld. Civil Court and asked the Ops not to effect such new connection. The complainant was intimated by the Ops about such incident through a letter dated 25.11.2014 wherein it was stated that the service connection as applied for is pending as the erection contractor could not complete the job and for this reason there is no laches on the part of the Ops, but the complainant knowing everything has filed the instant complaint without impleading the landlord Mr. Sukumar Dutta. Therefore as the complaint suffers from non-joinder of necessary party, the same is liable to be dismissed with cost. It is further stated by the Ops that in view of the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 and Rules and Regulations wherein it is framed that if there is any grievance against non-supply of electricity that should be ventilated before the Regulatory Commission or the person or authority empowered by the said Act and for this reason as having an alternative and appropriate statutory forum this ld. Forum has no jurisdiction to try the instant complaint, moreover as the dispute is a civil nature the same is liable to be dismissed with cost.
The complainant has filed evidence along with several documents in support of his contention. We have carefully perused the record as well as the documents filed by the parties and heard argument advanced by the ld. Counsel for the parties at length. It is seen by us that admittedly the complainant being a tenant of the premises in question has applied for new service connection for domestic purpose at his tenanted premises, he is residing therein as a lawful occupier and used to pay house rent regularly to his landlord, the complainant paid fees for application, security deposit, quotation and connection charge, the Op-1 has intimated him by issuing letter expressing their inability to provide new connection on the ground the landlord of the said premises has raised objection during providing service connection by the Ops, after receipt of such letter the complainant issued an Advocate’s letter wherein it was stated that he is entitled to get separate electric connection in his name at that premises, the complainant did not take any consent from the landlord regarding taking new and fresh electric connection in his name at the premises. The allegation of the complainant is that being a tenant he is very much entitled to get fresh and new electric connection in his favour without taking any consent from his landlord as per the Electricity Act. Hence this complaint has been filed by the complainant praying for electric connection along with certain reliefs. On the contrary, the case of the Ops is that though they were agreed to provide electric connection to the complainant but as the landlord of the said premises has raised objection during effect of such service connection the same could not been effected and in this respect there is no laches on their part. Hence the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as sought for. Further contention of the Ops is that this complaint is not maintainable before this ld. Forum because for redressal of such grievance complainant is at liberty to approach before the Regulatory Commission or the appropriate authority empowered by the Act in view of the Electricity Act, 2003. It is also submitted by the Ops that this complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party as the landlord has not been impleaded in the instant complaint. The Ops pray for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
In respect of non-joinder of party we are of the view that no complaint should be dismissed on that score in view of the reportable judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maloy kumar Ganguly Vs. Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee. It is true that it was the duty of the complainant to implead the landlord of the said premises in the instant case because according to the Ops he had raised objection in providing new and fresh electric connection in favour of the complainant. Inspite of this and having regard to the said judgment, the complaint should not go on that score. In respect of the submission of the Ops is that as parallel forum exists for redressal of such grievance of the complainant, the complainant is at liberty to approach before the same, we are of the view that in view of Section 3 of C.P. Act, 1986 the complainant is very much entitled to approached before the Consumer Forum for redressal of his grievance where inspite of making entire payment for getting new and fresh electric connection in his name, the Ops did not effect the same. Moreover, in view of Section 43 of Electricity Act, 2003 & 2011 the complainant being a consumer of the Ops is at liberty to choose to whom he prefers to approach. Therefore, where the liberty is being given to a consumer, hence we cannot hold that this ld. Forum is not the appropriate forum to adjudicate the matter. Hence the above-mentioned three pleas as taken by the Ops in the written version do not have any merit.
In respect of non-effecting of the electric service connection to the complainant, the Ops have mentioned in their written version that though they were inclined to give effect of the service connection but due to resistance created by the landlord of the said premises, service connection could not effected. We have noticed that the Ops have duly intimated the complainant the said incident by issuing letter. It is also an admitted fact that before getting new electric connection the complainant had to fill up a form issued by the OPs wherein there exists one clause wherein the complainant should provide the way leave permission to his premises to the Ops. But the said column has not been filled up by the complainant. In this respect one question is cropped up our mind that where the complainant did not fill up the form entirely and properly, how inspection was made by the Ops at the said site and decided to provide electric service connection at the questioned premises of the complainant. Not only that, without inspection the Ops have issued quotation and the same has duly been paid by the complainant. It is seen by us that complainant had duly paid the entire amount as per direction of the Ops for getting new and fresh electric connection in his name at the tenanted premises. During argument the ld. Counsel for the Ops did not satisfy us on what basis inspection was made and why such defect have not been detected before effecting of such connection. No satisfactory answer is forthcoming from the ld. Counsel for the Ops. As per Electricity Act, 2011 a tenant and the occupier is also entitled to get electric connection in his name. Admittedly, in modern days electricity being an essential device and commodity. It became part and parcel with our life. Therefore, the complainant is very much entitled to get electric connection in his name at his tenanted premises. But as the landlord has raised objection it is the duty of the complainant to provide way leave permission to the Ops for such connection, it is not the incumbent of the Ops. The Ops are at liberty to seek police help during providing service connection to the complainant at his tenanted premises, but for such help the cost will be bear by the complainant. The complainant has prayed for compensation and litigation cost from the Ops. But in our view as the Ops tried their best to effect electric connection to the complainant but due to resistance same could not be provided, in our view there was no laches on the part of the Ops and hence the complainant is not entitled to get any amount towards compensation and cost. Moreover, when the complainant came to know that due to resistance of his landlord service connection could not be effected, the complainant did not approach before the local police station seeking their assistance.
Going by the foregoing discussion hence, it is
O r d e r e d
that the complaint is allowed in part on contest without any cost. The Ops are directed to provide fresh and new electric service connection in favour of the complainant at the schedule premises taking police help, if required, within 45 days from the date of passing of this order, in default, the complainant will be at liberty to put the decree in execution as per provisions of law. The expenses, if any, for seeking police help shall be borne by the complainant. With the above-mentioned observation the complaint is thus disposed of accordingly.
Let a plain copy of this final order/judgment be supplied to the parties free of charge.
(Asoke Kumar Mandal)
Dictated and corrected by me. President
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Silpi Majumder)
Member
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Silpi Majumder)
Member
DCDRF, Burdwan
