DATE OF FILING : : 13.11.2014.
DATE OF S/R : 17.04.2017.
DATE OF ORDER : 30.01.2018.
Sri Jagannath Sasmal,
son of Sri Amar Sasmal,
residing at village Ichapur, P.O. Golabari, P.S. Jagatballavpur,
District Howrah..………………….……………………….……..…… COMPLAINANT.
1. West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd.,
having its office at Ichapur Kamardanga,
District Howrah,
being represented by Divisional Engineer,
Howrah R.E. Camp.
2. The Station Manager & Assistant Engineer,
Bargachia Group Electric Supply,
WBSEDCL, village & P.O. Bargachia, P.S. Jagatballavapur,
District Howrah.
3. Suvankari Goswami,
4. Sailajananda Goswami,
5. Sri Brindaban Goswami,
6. Basudev G oswami,
Sl. nos. 3 to 6 all are of village Nimabalia,
P.O. Garbalia, P.S. Jagatballavpur,
District Howrah………….…………………………….……OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
Hon’ble President : Abdul Kuddus.
Hon’ble Member : Shri Sajal Kanti Jana.
Hon’ble Member : Smt. Banani Mohanta ( Ganguli ).
F I N A L O R D E R
Facts of the case of the complainant, in short, is that this complainant is the owner and possessor of his residential premises situated in Khaitan no. 49, Mouza Ichapur, R.S. plot no. 246 under police station Jagatballavpur, Howrah. Complainant applied for getting new electric connection in his said residential premises to o.p. nos. 1 & 2. O.p. no. 2 is the Station Manager of Group Electric Supply, Bargachia. Now o.p. nos. 1 & 2 have denied to give new electric connection to the case premises on the plea that o.p. nos. 3 to 6 are raising objection in giving electric connection to the case premises on the plea of pendency of civil cases. So this complainant has filed this case and prayed for making direction upon the o.ps. to supply electric at the residence of the complainant situated in plot no. 246 and also prays for other reliefs.
This case is being contested by the O.P. nos. 1 & 2, WBSEDCL, by filing written version denying all allegations as made in the petition of complaint contending interalia that case is not maintainable, there is no cause of action, complainant is not a consumer. The specific case of the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 is that this complainant has applied for electric connection in his residence as such she deposited security money before the office of o.p. nos. 1 & 2. But the other o.ps. i.e., o.p. nos. 3 to 6 were raising objection at the time of fixing electric pole. So these o.p. nos. 1 & 2 could not be able to complete their work for giving electric supply. Complainant has also filed this case suppressing the fact before the office of these o.p. nos. 1 & 2. So this complaint is liable to be dismissed.
On the other hand, o.p. nos. 3 to 6 filed written version jointly and denied all allegations as made in the petition of complaint contending interalia that over the self same matter this civil suit bearing no. T. S. 100 of 2010 is pending and there is an interim order to maintain statuesque. So this complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
POINTS FOR DETERMINATION :
i) Is the case maintainable in its present form ?
ii) Whether the complainant is a ‘Consumer’ as per provision of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ?
iii) Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the o.ps as alleged ?
iv) Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
In this case, ld. advocate for the complainant argued interalai that complainant applied for electric connection to his residence but o.p. nos. 1 & 2 are not giving electric connection to his residence on the plea of resistance made by o.p. nos. 3 to 6. So he prays for reliefs as prayed in the petition of complaint.
On the other hand, ld. advocate for the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 argued interalia that they are always ready to give electric connection; but they could not be able to give electric connection due to resistance made by the private o.p. nos. 3 to 6. On the other hand, ld. advocate for the o.p. nos. 3 to 6 argued interalia that over the self same dispute civil suit is pending and ld. Civil Court has passed order of temporary injunction directing the parties to maintain statuesque. So according to him this complaint is liable to be dismissed.
We have carefully heard the submission made by the ld. advocate for both sides. Perused the BNA and the materials on record. It appears that it is undisputed that the complainant has applied for getting electric connection to the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 and he has deposited requisite charges for getting electric connection. The dispute is that a civil suit is pending over the self same dispute and to prove it ld. advocate for o.p. nos. 3 to 6 submitted xerox copy of the certified copy of the order dated 26.5.2011 passed by the ld. Civil Judge, Jr. Divison, 7th Court, Howrah, in connection with T.S. no. 100 of 2010 and xerox copy of certified copy of the plaint of T.S. 100 of 2010.
It reveals from this copy of plaint that this civil suit has been filed by these o.p. nos. 3 to 6 against this complainant and one Sasadhar Manna and o.p. nos. 1 & 2. It also reveals from the copy of plaint that this plaintiff of the civil suit have stated in their plaint interalia that this complainant i.e., defendant nos. 1 & 2 have taken electric connection within their holding from the nearby post situated to the west of the property of the plaintiff. It also been further alleged in the plaint of civil suit that this complainant and defendant no. 2 have fixed a pole which is on the eastern side of the passage situated to the southern side of the defendant holding with malafide intention. So these plaintiffs i.e., o.p. nos. 3 to 6 of this case have made prayer for declaration that defendant nos. 3 & 4 have no power and authority to arrange for electric connection within the landed property of the defendant no. 2 through exclusive landed property and residence of the plaintiff without taking any permission from them.
It appears to us that this private defendants have filed T.S. no. 100 of 2010 for declaration and permanent injunction restraining these o.p. nos. 1 & 2 to supply electric connection over the property of o.p. nos. 3 to 6. But we find that civil court has passed order to maintain STATUSQUE by both parties in respect of changing nature, character and possession of suit property i.e., plot nos. 12, 14, 15, 16 under old khatian nos. 98 and 99, Mouza NIMBAZIA, District Howrah.
We are of the opinion that if new electric connection is given to the residence of the complainant through other route other than the property involved in civil suit then the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 will not face any problem to give new electric connection to the residence of the complainant.
There is nothing in the written version to show whether any alternative route to give electric connection to the residence of the complainant is available or not. So complainant may be asked to seek alternative route for getting electric connection.
Moreover, it has been observed by the Hon’ble High Court Calcutta reported referred to above “AIR 2008 Cal page 47(B) that Electricity Act, ( 2003 ) Section 43 and Constitution of India; Article 21 – Right to Electricity is also right to life and liberty in terms of Article 21 because no one, in the modern days, can survive without electricity.”
In view of observation of the Hon’ble High Court Calcutta reported in above we find that no one in the modern days can survive without any electricity and therefore the right of electricity is also right to life and liberty in terms of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
In view of above facts and circumstances we find that the complainant is entitled to get electricity in his premises and o.p. nos. 1 & 2 are duty bound to give electric connection to case premises in alternative route except the plots involved in the civil suit. If electric connection is given to residence of complainant through alternative route then none would be prejudiced.
So we hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 and complainant is entitled to electric connection over the alternative route as observed in the body of judgment above.
In this case we find that o.p. nos. 3 to 6 are not service providers and complainant has not availed or hired any service from the o.p. nos. 3 to 6 for some consideration. So we hold that complainant is not a consumer of o.p. nos. 3 to 6. So this complaint is liable to be dismissed against o.p. nos. 3 to 6.
In the result, this consumer complaint succeeds in part in respect of o.p. nos. 1 & 2.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 583 of 2014 ( HDF 583 of 2014 ) be and the same is hereby allowed on contest against o.p. nos. 1 & 2 but without costs.
That the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 are directed to give new service connection to the premises of the complainant, situated in the case property by 30 days from the date of receipt of sketch map of alternative route through alternative route other than plots involved in the civil suit bearing no. 100 of 2010, pending before the ld. Civil Judge, Jr. Division, 7th Court, Howrah.
Complainant is directed to find out alternative route for drawing electric line from the main electric pole to his residence and to draw a sketch line by a professional civil engineer having knowledge in this regard and to submit the same before the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 by 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of judgment and o.p. nos 1 & 2 are hereby directed to supply the electric connection through alternative route by 30 days from the date of receipt of report with sketch map; if they are not restrained by an order of injunction by competent court.
If any resistance or objection is made by any person illegally to o.p. nos. 1 & 2 in the matter of giving electric connection to case premises then the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 are at liberty to take the aid of police according to law in this regard.
If no alternative route is not available then complainant is at liberty to approach before the ld. Civil Court where T.S. 100 of 2010 is pending for proper relief in this regard according to law.
We do not like to award any compensation or cost of litigation as no such prayer has been made by the complainant in his petition of complaint.
Let a plain copy of the judgment be given to the both sides, free of costs, as early as possible.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( Abdul Kuddus )
President, C.D.R.F., Howrah.
