This case has been filed U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant.
In a pith and marrow the complainant’s case is that he is an unemployed person and to earn his own livelihood. He made an application to ‘SREI SAHAJE-VILLAGE LTD.’, an organization for village development, to run its common service centre in favour of the present complainant at Rampara Village. The ‘SREI SAHAJE-VILLAGE LTD.’ considered the application of the complainant and appointed him as village level entrepreneur to run the common service centre in the village at Rampara and for this purpose the complainant deposited Rs.40,000/- vide money receipt No.10078 dated 27.3.2009. The complainant further states that to run the common service centre for his livelihood he applied before the WBSEDCL for a commercial electric connection at CSC which is on his own piece of land. But the WBSEDCL did not inspect the place properly and rejected the application. Being harassed the complainant again made the application to WBSEDCL, but there was no fruitful result came out. There was no clear clarification as to what reason why the application of complainant was rejected, though the complainant has the trade license of Furfura Gram Panchayet.
Being aggrieved the complainant made an application to S.D.E.M. for the above said electric connection and S.D.E.M., Serampore passed the order in favour of the new electric connection and accordingly WBSEDCL, Jangipara sent a quotation to the complainant and as per quotation the complainant deposited Rs.1,203/- only vide money receipt No.27737/27738 dated 7.4.2014, but till today the complainant did not get the electric connection.
For not having the electricity the complainant could not inaugurate the CSC. On 2.7.2014 the complainant got a termination letter from ‘SREI SAHAJE-VILLAGE LTD.’ The complainant sent several letters and requested to the Station Manager, WBSEDCL, Jangipara for electric connection, but the authority of WBSEDCL, Jangipara did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant.
Finding no other alternative the complainant has compelled to file this case before this Forum and has prayed direction upon the opposite parties to install the new electric connection, to pay compensation of Rs.70,000/- for harassment and to pay Rs.20,000/- to the complainant for litigation cost.
The opposite parties contested the case by filing written version denying all the material allegations as leveled against them. These opposite parties state that originally the property in question in which the complainant wanted to get electricity is a joint property and no partition was made in respect of the case property. From the record it will be found that the property in question was possessed by one Jharna Pal and in the year 2013, said Jharna Pal transferred the case property to one Sipra Mahinder and Sanjay Porel and at present they are in possession of the case property situated at Mouza-Rampara, P.S.-Jangipara, J.L. No.105 measuring about 04 Satat in Dag No.249 and Khatian Nos.1012 & 1013. Now, Sandip Kumar Pal who happens to be the brother-in-law of Jharna Pal and co-sharer of the case property, has filed an application before the WBSEDCL for getting electric connection and to create possessory right over the case property and to grab the same.
That Sandip Kumar Pal filed an application before the WBSEDCL, Jangipara for a new service connection for commercial purpose on 24.11.2010 and after inspection it was found that Smt. Jharna Pal has made objection regarding the new connection. The WBSEDCL intimated the matter to the complainant vide Memo No.JCCC/Estb./755 dated 23.2.2011 and the said letter was duly received by the complainant. The complainant again applied for new service connection on 25.8.2011 vide application No.1000309384. On inspection it was again found that Jharna Pal again raised objection regarding the new connection and it was again intimated to the complainant.
That on 02.02.2013 Sri Sanjay Porel and Smt. Sipra Mahinder submitted objection letter to the office of this opposite parties against the new service connection of Sandip Kumar Pal. According to their submissions the said land was handed over to them by Jharna Pal and the same was intimated to the applicant on 26.2.2013 vide Memo No.JCCC/Estb./Consumer/1079. Thereafter this opposite parties received an order from the Executive Magistrate, Serampore U/s.144(2) Cr. P.C. in case No.397 of 2014. As per order of the Executive Magistrate this opposite parties issued quotation to the complainant and complainant also deposited quotation amount on 7.4.2014 and during the electric connection work the same objection was received by the opposite parties.
That complainant applied to R.G.R.O., Hooghly Region on 15.10.2014 for solution. The Ld. R.G.R.O. called hearing on 25.11.2014 and on 10.2.2015 the Ld. R.G.R.O. ordered to make joint inspection to find an alternative route for effecting the service connection. That on 7.3.2015 a joint inspection was carried out by these opposite parties. In this time again objection was raised against the new connection. The matter was intimated to Ld. R.G.R.O. on 16.3.2015 vide Memo No.JCCC/Estb/1728. Thereafter the complainant moved to Ombudsman for redressal of his grievances. After hearing the matter on 28.8.2015 Ld. Ombudsman ordered to make another attempt for effecting new service connection with police assistance. That on 29.9.2015 another attempt was made for effecting the service connection with police personnel, but again objection was raised by the Jharna Pal and other co-sharers. That in the above circumstances the WBSEDCL, Jangipara CCC could not effect the new service connection inspite of their best effort. Hence, these opposite parties have prayed before this Forum to dismiss the instant case with cost.
Upon the above pleadings following points have been framed for determination.
- Whether the complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties?
- Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try this case?
- Whether complainant is entitled to have the order as prayed for ?
- Whether opposite parties are liable to install new electric connection at the premises of the complainant?
- To what other relief, if any is the petitioner entitled?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point No.1
From the materials on record it transpired that the complainant is “Consumers” as provided by the spirit of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It palpably and nakedly reveals that only to have the new electric connections complainant already paid considerable amount to the authority concerned and from the opposite parties end there were already some attempts to installs new electric connections on the land in question alleged to have been claimed by the complainant being its owner. Therefore, it can be safely said that the complainant is a consumer to the opposite parties as he already paid requisite fees as required to have new electric connections. So, this point answered in affirmative.
Point No.2
Both the complainant and opposite parties resident/carrying on business or having their offices within the district of Hooghly. The complaint valued within Rs.20,00,000/- limit of this Forum. So, this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try this case.
Points No.3 & 4
These two points are very crucial and important and at the same time those are interlinked with each other. So, these two points are taken up together for discussion.
The main contention of the complainant is that only to earn his own livelihood he made an application to ‘SREI SAHAJE-VILLAGE LTD’, an organization for village development, to run its common service centre in favour of the complainant at Rampara village and complainant has been appointed by ‘SREI SAHAJE-VILLAGE LTD’ entrepreneur to run the common service centre in village-Rampara at to that effect complainant deposited Rs.40,000/- to ‘SREI SAHAJE-VILLAGE LTD’ . Accordingly, complainant applied to WBSEDCL for commercial electric connection at Common Service Centre which stands on the land of the complainant, but WBSEDCL did not inspect the place properly and rejected the application of the complainant. Subsequently, complainant made application to LD. S.D.E.M., Serampore and on the basis of the order of Ld.SDEM, Serampore WBSEDCL, Jangipara sent a quotation and complainant deposited Rs.1,203/- accordingly. But WBSEDCL, Jangipara did not install new electric connection at Common Service Centre on the land in question. Accordingly, the complainant has prayed for reliefs.
Per contra, the main contentions of the opposite parties is that the opposite parties made several attempts to install new electric connections, but they could not effect the new service connection inspite of their best efforts. It is categorically contended that the dispute is respect of the land in question is a civil dispute in nature and WBSEDCL is not responsible for its failure to effect new service connection of electricity. It is categorically highlighted by the opposite parties that the dispute in between complainant and other co-sharer in respect of the land in question could only be settled by the civil court and as such opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the instant case.
From the complainant’s end different copies of documents have been filed. From opposite parties end several copies of documents have been also filed.
From the above documents this forum finds the copy of final order dated 17.12.2015 of the concerned Ld. Ombudsman in connection with G.R. Case No.W-87NG of 2015.
In its final order concerned Ld. Ombudsman clearly observed “……..It cannot be denied that the opposite party has sincerely attempted to effect the service connection even with the help of local P.S. It cannot be the responsibility of the opposite party to erect the pole on a disputed land ignoring the physical resistance given by a local objector. This forum is also not competent to pass order on the local P.S. to provide police protection to erect the electric pole by applying force if necessary for the purpose of effecting the service connection that has been prayed for. The complainant however has the right to enjoy electric supply and to ensure that he has the liberty to move appropriate court of law…...”
It is also observed by the concerned Ld. Ombudsman that as the matter pertaining to the grievance of the complainant involves the question of law and order and land dispute extending relief to the complainant against his petition is beyond the competence of this forum and the concerned Ld. Ombudsman disposed of the case without any order.
Materials on record clearly and emphatically show that materials on record there was clear obstructions faced by the men of opposite parties at the time of installation of effecting new electric connection on the land in question and to that effect opposite parties have duly informed the complainant.
It is pertinent to note that complainant has failed to file any piece of documents wherefrom it will be evident that complainant is the exclusive owner of the land in question. From the materials on record and considering the attending facts and circumstances of the case this Forum is of the clear view that there is sufficient and ample evidence materials available on records wherefrom it can easily be drawn inference that civil dispute is going on in between complainant and other co-sharer in respect of the land in question.
This Forum is fully concurring the views taken by the concerned Ld. Ombudsman in its final order.
It will not be out of place to mention that this Forum has no scope and jurisdiction to declare title and interest whatsoever in respect of any piece of land in favaour of anybody else. The scenario of this case as appearing clearly indicates that there is absolutely civil dispute is going on in between the complainant and co-sharers relating to land in question upon which complainant made prayer to the opposite parties to effect new electric connection. But we cannot bypass the root of original dispute i.e. civil disputes in between the co-sharer of the land in question and to the mind of this Forum that only to have order for redressal of relief as sought for in the complaint is lying with the Civil Court in as much as there is a burning civil dispute is going on among the co-sharers of the land in question. Thus, these points No.3 & 4 are answered in negative.
Point No.5
In view of the discussion made in points No.3 & 4 this Forum is of the opinion that point No.5 should be answered in negative and accordingly we are doing that.
Therefore, this Forum finds no merit in the complaint of the complainant and as such the instant case is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is,
Ordered
that the complaint case being No.150/2017 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the opposite parties.
Let the copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.
