DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
MUCHIPARA, BURDWAN.
Consumer Complaint No.201 of 2015
Date of filing: 16.9.2015 Date of disposal: 12.5.2016
Complainant: Sudeb Karmakar, S/o. Sri Kartick Karmakar, resident of Simdal, PO: Simdal, PS. & District: Burdwan, PIN – 713 141.
-V E R S U S-
Opposite Party: 1. West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd., Burdwan Customer Care Centre, Sector –II, Badamtala, PO., Ps. & District: Burdwan, represented by its Station Manager, PIN – 713 101.
2. West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd., having its Divisional Office at Burdwan Urban Division, Frazer Avenue, Power House, Burdwan, represented by its Divisional Manager, PIN – 713 101.
3. Bhaggya Lakshmi Mondal, W/o. Jagabandhu Mondal, resident of 21, Sashibhushan Bose Road, Radhanagar, PO., PS. & District: Burdwan, PIN – 713 101.
4. Jagabandhu Mondal, resident of 21, Sashibhushan Bose Road, Radhanagar, PO., PS. & District: Burdwan, PIN – 713 101.
Present: Hon’ble Member: Smt. Silpi Majumder.
Hon’ble Member: Sri Pankaj Kumar Sinha.
Appeared for the Complainant: Ld. Advocate, Debdas Rudra.
Appeared for the Opposite Party No. 1&2: Ld. Advocate, Biswanath Nag.
Appeared for the Opposite Party No. 3&4: Ld. Advocate, Ashish Banerjee.
J U D G E M E N T
This complaint is filed by the complainant u/S. 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice against the OP-1&2 as they did not shift the meter from the existing site to the premises of the complainant and the Op-3&4 have raised objection in respect of such shifting of meter.
The brief fact of the case of the complainant is that one two storied building as well as one old single storied building were situated on the property and the Op-3 was the original owner of the said property. The Op-3 sold out the portion of ground floor of the two storied building for residential purpose to Mr. Bhaskar Das, S/o. Rabi Das, and the one single storied building was sold to Mrs. Bani Das, W/o. Rabi Das. Thereafter Bhaskar Das & Bani Das being the son and mother became the owners of the portion of the ground floor of the two storied building and the said single storied building of the said property. The deed was accordingly registered with the Addl. Dist. Sub-Registrar, Burdwan. Mr. Bhaskar Das and Mrs. Bani Das transferred their property to the complainant by virtue of registered deed. The complainant purchased the said property with all fittings and fixtures including electric connection. Thereafter during ownership of the said property the complainant applied before the Op-1 to change the ownership of the electric connection in his name in place of the previous owner, namely, Bani Das. Surprisingly, when the Op-3 and her husband Op-4 came to learn that the complainant has purchased the said property from Bhaskar Das & Bani Das and became the owner, then the Op-3&4 illegally and with ulterior motive disconnected the electric service line of the complainant from their existing meter by violating the law of this land. The complainant requested the Op-3 & 4 to let him know the reason for disconnection of service line, but they did not pay any heed to his request, rather the Op-3&4 threatened the complainant that he could do anything as he liked and the complainant do anything to restore the electric service line. Thereafter the Op-1 issued a quotation report for changing the ownership on behalf of the complainant on 10.5.2014 subject to payment of Rs. 730=00 to the Op-1 towards the charges for change of ownership. Accordingly the amount was paid by the complainant on 19.6.2014, money receipt issued. The ownership of the said electric connection was transferred ultimately in the name of the complainant. It is to be noted that since beginning two electric meters were installed at the entrance of the ground floor of the Op-3 for good conveyances. But after purchasing the said property the complainant applied before the Op-1 for alteration of his meter at his premises. Upon receipt of the said application the Op-1 issued a letter on 26.12.2014 stating that they have received the application from the complainant along with documents and request was made by the Op-1 to deposit a sum of Rs. 200=00 towards earnest money and the application will be considered to be received only on deposition of the earnest money. The Op-1 had stated in the said letter that the inspection at the premises of the complainant would be carried out within 7 days for urban areas and within 15 days for rural areas after the date of receipt of the application. Without making any delay the complainant paid Rs. 200=00 in cash to the Op-1 on 26.12.2014 towards the charges of earnest money, money receipt issued. Upon receipt of the earnest money of Rs.200=00 from the complainant the OP-1 issued again a quotation on 30.12.2014 for alteration of services by shifting the meter at the premises of the complainant and requested him to pay Rs.800=00 towards the charges for alteration of service charges on or within 30.3.2015. The complainant paid the said amount to the OP -1 on 02.01.2015 towards the payment of service connection charges. The OP-1 issued money receipt. Thereafter the technical staffs of the OP-1 went at the premises of the complainant to alter/shift the said meter from the existing places. But the OP-3 & 4 opposed the technical staffs of the OP-1 to do the same. Then the OP-1 sent a notice to the complainant dated 06.7.2015 stating that the land owners–OP -3 & 4 made an objection in writing against the alteration of the meter from the existing place to the premises of the complainant and as such they are not in a position to shift the meter from the existing place to the premises of the complainant. It is to be noticed that the OP-1 also stated in the said notice that the OP-3 & 4 requested the OP-1 to remove the said meter from their premises, which is beyond to the provisions of the law that tantamount to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on behalf of the O3 & 4. Upon receipt of the said letter dated 06.7.2015 the complainant sent a legal notice on 31.7.2015 requesting the OP-1 to act properly for alteration of the service line from the existing place to the premises of the complainant as early as possible, failing which the complainant would have no other alternative but to move before the proper Forum against the OP-1 challenge the inaction against their part.
On 11.08.2015 the OP-1 sent a notice to the Complainant informing that their technical staff went to the premises of the Complainant where no-7S0426788 was installed for removal of meter and shifting to the premises of the Complainant but they failed to do that work as the OP-3 who is the owner of the 2nd floor of the building and also her husband-OP-4 opposed them against alteration of the electric service line. The OP-1 also requested the Complainant in the said notice to apply for refund of his shifting deposited money, which is nothing but unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. At present electricity is the most essential thing to human beings and without electricity, the life is meaningless. Since the date of purchasing the property as the OP-3 disconnected the electric service line of the Complainant, he and his family members could not live in the said ground floor of the building and hence they are suffering from great mental pain, agony and harassment. Moreover, it is to be noted that the said Meter being no-7S0426788 is defective one and it would be evident from the electric bill dated 05.12.2013 and inspite of disconnection of the electric service line of the Complainant, the OP-1 has been sending electric bills and the Complainant is continuously paying the bill amounts within due date till date. Being aggrieved with the service of the OPs, the Complainant having no alternative to get relief has been compelled to file this case before this Ld. Forum praying for direction upon the OP-1 and 2 to alter/shift of the meter no-7S0426788 from the existing place to the premises of the Complainant, to install the service line from the said meter to the premises of the Complainant, direction upon the OPs for making payment of compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- towards monetary loss, mental pain, agony and harassment and litigation cost of Rs.15,000/- to him.
The petition of complaint have been contested by the OP-1 and 2 by filing written version jointly stating that the Complainant after purchasing the premises wherein the service connection in question is installed from the previous owners Bhaskar Das and Smt. Bani Das all the formalities for change of tenancy in respect of said service connection having been complied with as per the Notification no-46 of WBERC, the said service connection has been changed in the name of the Complainant on 19.06.2014 and thereafter an application for alteration/shifting of the said service connection has been filed by the Complainant as per Regulation 46 clause 3 Of the WBERC and accordingly a quotation was issued to the Complainant for such work and after receipt of the quotation, the Complainant has paid the same and then the staff of the OP-1 and 2 went to the premises of the Complainant to shift the meter to the place as desired by the Complainant several times but in all times the said premises was found under lock and key and on 06.07.2015 an intimation was sent to the Complainant with regard to execution of such work but he did not response on the other hand the OP-3 and 4 at every time have resisted the staff of the OPs to enter in to the premises even after receiving the legal notice of the advocate of the Complainant. Again the technical staff of the OPs went to the premises of the Complainant for shifting the meter in presence of the Complainant on 08.08.2015 but they failed to do the same and subsequently the Complainant verbally demanded to refund the amount deposited and accordingly an intimation was given by the OP-1 on 11.08.2015 stating therein in details about non-execution of the work. It is further submitted that the disconnection as alleged was not effected by the OPs as the installed meter was found defective. The technical staff went to the Complainant’s premises to check and replace the same but failed due to objection raised by the OP-3 and 4 and accordingly estimated bill has been raised and as such there is no laches or negligence on the part of these OPs. Actually to harass these OPs the Complainant has filed the instant case which is liable to be dismissed with cost. The OPs have further stated that in view of the provision of the Section 42 (5) of the Electricity Act and Rules & regulation framed thereunder if there is any grievance against any service provided related electricity that should be ventilated before the Regulatory Commission or before the person or authority empowered by the said Act and as such having alternative and appropriate Forum this ld. Forum has no jurisdiction to try with the instant complaint. Accordingly prayers have been made by the OP-1 and 2 for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
The petition of complaint have been contested by the OP-3 & 4 by filing written version contending that the property in question which the Complainant purchased is the ground floor portion of two buildings, one old and one new, separated by a passage, situated upon R.S. Plot no-3134. So far as the first floor is concerned as the case may be of either of the property situated on the said plot is not owned by the Complainant. Even in the ground floor the Complainant has no possession at all. So far as the northern portion ground floor property purchased by the Complainant is concerned, there is no electrical infrastructure. Whatever infrastructure was previously there, the same has been completely demolished or burnt. The meter through which the electric line to that portion was routed stood in the name of Satayanarayan Mondal and the said meter was installed in the holding situated on a different RS plot i.e. plot no-3133. Satyanarayan Mondal has expired long ago. On the RS plot no-3134 there are two buildings separated by a passage running in east-west direction. The building situated at the southern side of the passage relatively new and is double storied and that in the northern side is relatively older and single storied. One Bhaskar Das purchased the ground floor of the said double storied building from Bhaggya Lakshmi Mandal where she retained ownership over every portion including roof of the ground floor and the first floor and the roof etc. in the said double storied building there was a service connection in the name of Bhaggya Lakshmi Mandal. Said connection cannot be transferred as she is still owner and possessor of the said holding. The ground floor of the building of the property situated at the north of the said passage on RS Plot no. 3134 was transferred by Bhaggya Lakshmi Mandal to one Gita Das retaining her right over the other portions. Merely because the said building is single storied does not make the transferee Gita Das owner of the roof or other story, if built thereon. In this portion situated at the northern side of the passage there was one electric connection in the name of Satyanarayan Mondal, since deceased. Although the Complainant did not mention the related service connection in his complaint, but from the documents enclosed to the complaint it seems that the complainant is now claiming ownership right over the said service connection and the corresponding meter. Admittedly the service connection of Satyanarayan Mondal is attached to the holding where Bhaggya Lakshmi Mandal was the exclusive owner and she is still owner of the said holding in respect of the first floor, first floor roof, passage, reservoir etc. So as Bhaggya Lakshmi Mandal has right over that property the service connection cannot be transferred to any other person. Moreover the said meter was installed in the holding of Jagabandhu Mondal at RS plot no-3133 and on that analogy the OP-4 has also a right over the said meter. Previously Bhaskar Das and Gita Das by forging the signature of Bhaggya Lakshmi Mondal got the both service connections transferred in their names. The OP-3 lodged complaint with the concerned authorities of the WBSEDCL. As they refused to redress the grievance of the OP-3 she lodged an appeal before the electricity Ombudsman. During pendency of the appeal, the service connection lying in the name of Bhaggya Lakshmi Mondal was restored. So far as the service connection of Satyanarayan Mondal is concerned the WBSEDCL authorities had stated that the said connection was in the name of a dead person and that meter has already been burnt. So no step is required to be taken. Under these circumstances the OP-3 did not proceed with the appeal. The OP-3 and 4 have submitted that the electricity authorities as well as the Complainant has taken a wrong approach by changing of the ownership of the service connection, which is attached to the holding where the OP-3 is still is an owner and the meter of that service connection is installed in the holding of the OP-4. So the said service connection cannot be changed in any other person’s name and there is no question of alteration of service as alleged or at all. Moreover in law ‘alteration of service’ has a meaning and the case of the Complainant is beyond the scope of such meaning as per law. The wrong approach is evident from the fact that the Complainant is being required to ask for change of ownership and then alternation of service. The change of ownership, if done is illegal as the same has been done without giving any intimation to these OPs. The OPs reserve their right to take out appropriate measure against such illegality. The OPs have right to claim ownership over the alleged service connection and this Ld. Forum may protect such right. The OPs being consumers in order to mitigate multiplicity of proceedings have ventilated their grievance and prayed for adjudication over the matter through this proceeding in respect of the illegality done by the WBSEDCL by changing the ownership of the concerned service connection. From another point of view it may be alternatively argued that Satyanarayan Mondal has already died and grant of electricity being contractual service, with the death of said person contract had been seized and there was no scope for change of ownership in respect of any meter lying in the name of a dead person. During purchase of the property by the Complainant in fact there was neither any electrical infrastructure in the so-called purchased property or any functioning meter, particularly in respect of the property situated at the north of the passage on RS Plot No. 3134, so the Complainant has no cause to change of meter or shifting of meter or transfer of meter. Jagabandhu Mondal having his own electric connection, question does not arise to shift the same in the name of other person. Jagabandhu Mondal has already filed a case asking for pre-emption in respect of the so-called deed of transfer of the Complainant in connection with the property pertained in the portion of RS plot no-3134 and the said case is still pending. On that analogy the OP-4 has a right to say about the meter lying in his holding. As the complaint has no merit at all, is liable to be dismissed.
The Complainant has filed evidence on affidavit along with several documents in support of his contention. The ld. Counsel for the Complainant has relied on some rulings during advancing argument. The ld. Counsel for the OP-1 & 2 has also relied on the Electricity Act, Rules, Regulation and Ruling in support of their contentions.
We have carefully perused the entire record and heard argument advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the contesting parties at length.
It is seen by us that the case of the Complainant is that he purchased one property (residential building) from one Mr. Bhaskar Das and Mrs. Bani Das, who transferred their property to the Complainant by virtue of a registered deed of sale in the year 2013 and which was registered before the Additional District Sub-Registrar, Burdwan. The Complainant purchased the said property along with all fittings & fixtures including electric connection. After completion of all formalities he applied before the OP-1 for changing the ownership of the electric connection in his name and at his premises in place of the previous owner. The allegation of the Complainant is that though as per his application the ownership has been changed by the OP-1, but due to resistance of the OP-3 & 4 the shifting of the said meter from the existing place to his premises has not yet been done by the OP-1. According to him the actions of all the OPs suffer from deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice. Further allegation has been made by the Complainant against the OP-1 and 2 as they have failed to take legal action against the OP-3 and 4 as per the Electricity Act. The rebuttal case of the OP-1 & 2 is that though they took several steps for shifting the meter, but due to resistance of the OP-3 & 4 they could not do the same, hence there was no deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on their behalf as alleged by the Complainant. Further case of the OP-1 and 2 is that as they could not shift the meter, by issuing notice upon the Complainant they requested him for making an application to withdraw the deposited amount. The case of the OP-3 & 4 is that they cannot give any permission for shifting the meter from the existing place to the premises of the Complainant because the sellers of the questioned portion of the building got the questioned service connection by forging the signature of the OP-3 and for this reason the OP-3 & 4 lodged complaint with the authorities of the WBSEDCL. In the meantime as the Complainant has filed this complaint the OP-3 did not proceed with the said complaint and moreover the service connection has been restored as per the order of the Ombudsman. According to the OP-3 and 4 the service connection, which is existing at their premises cannot be shifted at the premises of the Complainant and hence this complaint has no merit at all.
We have noticed that admittedly the Complainant has purchased the questioned property in the building for residential purpose from Mr. Bhaskar Das and Mrs. Bani Das, who transferred the said property in his favour by virtue of a registered deed of sale in the year 2013, which was registered before the Additional District Sub-Registrar, Burdwan and the Complainant purchased the property along with all fittings, fixtures including electric connection from the previous owners as mentioned. Thereafter the Complainant applied before the OP-1 for changing the ownership of the electric connection in his name along with shifting of the meter from the existing place to his premises. But while the OP-3 and 4 came to know that the Complainant became the owner of the said property, which was purchased from Mr. Bhaskar Das and Mrs. Bani Das, then the OP-3 & 4 have disconnected the electric service connection. It is admitted by the OP-3 & 4 in their written version that the disconnected electric service connection was restored by the OP-1 as per the order of the Ombudsman. Therefore it is clear that the said service connection was disconnected. In this respect we are of the view that as the Complainant purchased the concerned property along with all its liability, the said electric service connection is also the property of the Complainant and after purchased and registration the OP-3 & 4 do not possess any authority to disconnect the same and as the disconnection was made, hence the said action certainly can be termed as unfair because they have no power to interfere and create trouble in respect of property of any third person. Though several requests were made by the Complainant to the OP-3 & 4, but they did not pay any heed to his request. Thereafter the ownership of the said service connection was transferred by the OP-1 as per application of the Complainant and subject to make payment of due charges for such transfer as per the Electricity Act. Then the Complainant applied for shifting of the said electric meter from the existing place to his premises and for such shifting he paid due charges. But admittedly inspite of making payment of the due amount to the OP-1, till filing of this complaint the said meter had not been installed at the premises of the Complainant from the existing place. The OP-1 &2 have mentioned in their written version that though several attempts were taken by them, but due to resistance raised by the OP-3 &4, shifting of meter could not be made. The OP-3 & 4 have admitted that they have raised objection against such shifting. In our view as the ownership of the said electric service connection had already been transferred in the name of the Complainant, now the OP-3 & 4 have no authority to keep the said meter at their premises and under their custody. The OP-3 & 4 have alleged that Mr. Bhaskar Das and Gita Das by forging the signature of the OP-3 got the service connections and transferred the same in their names. If we accept such contention as true for the sake of argument, then also OP-3 & 4 have no authority for making such allegation and if the signature forged, then the OP-3 & 4 may approach before the appropriate Forum and in respect of such forging, if any, as there is no role of the Complainant, the Complainant should not be suffered. Being the owner of the property, electric service connection the Complainant is at liberty to transfer/shift the electric meter at his premises and no one can raise any objection in this respect. The OP-1 and 2 have stated that as they tried their best to shift the meter as per prayer of the Complainant, hence there is no deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on their behalf. In this respect the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant has relied on the Section 163 (1) & (3) of the Electricity Act, 2003, wherein it is enumerated that-
163. Power for licensee to enter premises and to remove fittings or other apparatus of licensee- (1) A licensee or any person duly authorized by a licensee may, at any reasonable time, and on informing the occupier of his intention, enter any premises to which electricity is, or has been, supplied by him, of any premises or land, under, under, over, along, across, in or upon which the electric supply-lines or other works have been lawfully placed by him for the purpose of-
(a) inspecting, testing, repairing or altering the electric supply lines, meters, fittings, works and apparatus for the supply of electricity belonging to the licensee; or
(b) ascertaining the amount of electricity supplied or the electrical quantity contained; or
(c) removing where a supply of electricity is no longer required, or where the licensee is authorized to take away and cut off such supply, any electric supply-lines, meters, fittings, works or apparatus belonging to the licensee.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
(3) where a consumer refuses to allow a licensee or any person authorized as aforesaid to enter his premises or land in pursuance of the provisions of sub-section (1) or, sub-section (2), when such licensee or person has so entered, refuses to allow him to perform any act which he is authorized by those sub-sections to perform, or fails to give reasonable facilities for such entry or performance, the licensee may, after the expiry of 24 hours from the service of a notice in writing on the consumer, cut off the supply to the consumer for so long as such refusal or failure continues, but for no longer.
The Ld. Counsel for the OP-1 and 2 has submitted that in view of the provision of the Section 42 (5) of the Electricity Act & Rules and Regulation framed thereunder if there is any grievance against any service provided related electricity that should be ventilated before the Regulatory Commission or before the person or authority empowered by the said Act. In this respect we of the view that where there is a specific Section in the Electricity Act (163), wherein it has been categorically mentioned that in case of refusal by any person to allow a licensee or any authorized to enter at his premises to perform any act, which he is authorized to perform, then what step can be taken by the said authorized person. But in the instant case there is no whisper in the written version of the OP-1 and 2 that they have acted as per the Electricity Act. So where the OP-1 and 2 did not bother to abide by their own Act, then they cannot give any advice to the Complainant to approach before the appropriate authority as per the Section 42 (5) of the Electricity Act for redressal his grievance. Therefore as the OP-1 &2 have violated their own Act, such action/inaction can easily be termed as deficiency in service.
It is mentioned earlier that the complainant purchased the concerned property along with fittings, fixtures, as well as, the electric service connection from Mr. Bhaskar Das and Mrs. Bani Das and later on the ownership in respect of the electric service connection has duly been transferred into the name of the complainant legally by the Department of Electricity. In our view where the ownership has been transferred, the Op-3&4 have no legal right to keep or hold the meter box under their custody at their premises; the same should be transferred as per direction of the complainant-purchaser. As the complainant has made an application for shifting of the meter from the allocation of OP-3&4 to his premises hence, the Op-3&4 are not empowered to raise any objection against such shifting. It is seen by us that the complainant is residing without any electricity for prolonged period. In this respect we may refer to the judgment reported in 2001 (1) CLJ 140 where the Hon’ble Justice Ashok Kumar Ganguly has held that “the expression ‘life’ under the 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 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 in broad vision of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”
In the written version the OP-3&4 relief have been sought for being consumers and in order to mitigate multiplicity of proceedings, a favourable order from this Ld. Forum stating that the WBSEDCL shall not shift the electric meter from the existing position and proper direction be given to the WBSEDCL as they have changed the ownership of the concerned service connection in favour of the complainant illegally. In this respect we are to say that as the consumer complaint has been filed by the complainant, no favourable order can be given in favour of the OP-3&4 through this complaint. So the relief sought for cannot be entertained.
Having regard to the above-mentioned observation of the Hon’ble Justice are of the view that admittedly the complainant paid necessary charges to the Op-1 for shifting of the meter from the existing place to his premises and as the complainant is living without electricity due to illegal action of the OP-3&4, such action cannot be encouraged in the eye of law. Therefore, the action of the OP-3&4 can be termed as improper, as well as, illegal.
Going by the foregoing discussion hence, it is
O r d e r e d
that the complaint is allowed on contest with cost. The Op-1&2 are directed to make payment a sum of Rs. 500=00 to the complainant due to deficiency in service for which the complainant had to suffer mental agony, pain and harassment for a prolonged period as the OP-1&2 without taking shelter under its law have encouraged the OP-3&4 to do illegal activities. The OP-1&2 are further directed to shift the meter from the existing place to the premises of the complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of passing of this order in active condition, in default, the complainant is at liberty to put the decree in execution as per provisions of law. If the Op-3&4 raise objection against such shifting, the OP-1&2 are at liberty to take Police help and in this connection the cost will be paid by the complainant. The Op-3&4 are directed not to raise objection in respect of shifting of the meter from the existing place to the premises of the complainant.
Let plain copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per provisions of Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
Dictated and corrected by me.
(Silpi Majumder)
Member
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Pankaj Kumar Sinha) (Silpi Majumder)
Member Member
DCDRF, Burdwan DCDRF, Burdwan
