Date of filing : 16.01.2015.
Date of S/R : 21.05.2015.
Date of Order : 10.12.2015.
Subrata Chakraborty,
son of late Birendra Nath Chakraborty
of Chamrail, Harisabhatala, P.S. Liluah,
District Howrah,
PIN 711204. ………………………….……………….………………………………………………….Complainant.
Vs.
- West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd.,
represented by the Engineer
of Jagadishpur HatSupply Office, P.O. Jagadishpur Hat, P.S. Liluah,
District Howrah,
PIN 711204.
- Suman Chakraborty,
son of late Birendra Nath Chakraborty
of Chamrail, Harisabhatala, P.S. Liluah,
District Howrah,
PIN 711204………………………………………………………………………………………….. Opposite parties.
P R E S E N T
Hon’ble President : Shri B. D. Nanda, M.A. ( double ), L.L.M., WBHJS.
Hon’ble Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
Hon’ble Member : Shri A.K. Pathak.
F I N A L O R D E R
This is an application U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, filed by the Petitioner, Subrta Chakraborty against the O.P.s, WBSEDCL AND Suman Chakrborty praying for direction upon the O.P. 1 to give electricity meter to the petitioner as early as possible and also police assistance for compliance such order and pay compensation of Rs. 5000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 5000/- against the O.P. No. 1.
The case of the petitioner is that he is a consumer under the O.P. having no electric connection in his house situated at Dag No. 247, Khatian No. 1048 , P.S. Lilua and applied for electric connection and on 07.06.2014 deposited Rs. 400/- and Rs. 623 in the supply office of the WBSEDCL. On 10.07.2014 suddenly he received a letter from o.p. no. 1 that due to objection raised by his co-sharer O.P. 2, it was not possible for the O.P. 1 to give new connection to the petitioner. He got shocked and ran pillar to post but all in vain even though he is legally entitled to get electric connection with new meter and so he filed the case.
The O.P. 1 contested the case by filing a written version denying the allegation made in the petition and submitted that the case is not maintainable and the petitioner has no cause of action to file the case. The O.P. 1 further stated the petitioner applied for new connection and quotation was served upon him and he deposited Rs. 400/- and Rs. 623 as service connection charges and permanent security deposit respectively. The O.P. issued service connection order but the contractor informed that there was resistance raised by O.P. 2 and they were compailed to stop work . There is no negligence on the part of the O.P. No. 1 as they are ready and willing to give the connection. So the case against the O.P. 1 be dismissed.
O.P. 2 also contested the cased and filed a separate W/V and denying the allegation made against him submitted that the petitioner and the O.p. 2 are co-sharer and there is partition suits being TS 329/2015 pending between them and the Civil court issued status quo order not the change the nature and character of the property and the case is liable to be rejected.
On the above cases of the parties the following issues are frame :
- Whether the case maintainable in the present form ?
- Whether the petitioner has any cause of action to file the case ?
- Whether any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.1 ?
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for ?
Decision with reason
All this issues are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity of discussion and to skip of reiteration . In support of his case the petitioner Subrata Chakraborty filed affidavit in chief along with documents which are also conceded by the O.P. 1 who submitted before this Forum that the petitioner and the O.P.2 are the co-sharers and partition suit has been pending between them in the Civil Court. The O.P. 2 has taken electric connection through common passage as stated by the petitioner . In his reply the petitioner conceded that the O.P. 1 could not give new connection to him as there was objection by the O.P. 2 . Thus here the allegation of deficiency in service does not arise. This Forum heard the ld. Counsels of all the sides . While the Counsel of the petitioner submitted that they need fresh electric connection then the Counsel of O.P. NO. 2 submitted that over the suit property there is a partition suit between the petitioner and O.P. 2 and the ld. Civil judge , Howrah issued status quo order not to change the nature and character of the property and now any change could give raise to multiplicity of proceedings . Keeping in mind the submission of the ld. Counsel and also keeping in mind the averments of the complaint petition and the W/V and the documents filed herein this Forum finds that in the instant case the suit property being undivided and partition suit pending which filed long after the filing of this CC 19/2015 filed on 16.01.2015 and also the matter in issue in the Civil suit in partition and this case with prayer for fresh electricity being different and a full bench of our parent High Court opining that a lawful occupier of the premises are entitled to get electricity and here the petitioner being a co-sharer cannot be deprived of having electric connection on the plea that Civil Suit pending between the parties.
In view of above discussion and findings this Forum finds that the Civil Case being a later one and also electric connection cannot change the nature and character of the property and filing of Civil suit cannot debar a legal occupier from enjoying his statutory rights. Hence, the petition is allowed.
Court fees paid is correct.
Hence,
Ordered
That the CC 19/2015 be and the same is allowed on contest against both the O.Ps. but with cost against o.p. no. 2.
The petitioner is entitled to fresh electric connection and get a fresh electric meter and the O.P. 1 is directed to give such connection and meter to the petitioner within 30 days from the date of this order. This Forum founds no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.1 and so no compensation is awarded.
As regard litigation cost this Forum found that the delay in giving new connection to the petitioner by the O.P. 1 resulted from the objection raised by O.P 2 who is to pay litigation cost of Rs. 2000/- to the petitioner within 30 days from the date of order. The prayer for police help is also allowed and both the petitioner as well as the O.P. 1 are given liberty to approach the I.C. of the local P.S. while giving such new connection and installation of new meter. The parties not complying the above order of the Forum within the stipulated time the petitioner is giving liberty to put the order in execution.
Supply the copy of the order to the parties free of cost.
Dictated and corrected
by me
( B. D. Nanda)
President, C.D.R.F. Howrah
