State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sri Amarendra Nath Bhowmick vs West Bengal State Electricity ... on 14 February, 2013
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission West Bengal BHABANI BHAVAN (GROUND FLOOR) 31, BELVEDERE ROAD, ALIPORE KOLKATA 700 027 S.C. CASE NOCC/21/2011 DATE OF FILING :30.03.2011 DATE OF ORDER:14.02.2013 COMPALAINANT : Sri Amarendra Nath Bhomick S/o Late Manindra Nath Bhowmik, Village-Aranghata, District-Nadia OPPOSITE PARTIES : 1.West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, Bidyut Bhawan, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700091 2.The Chairman, West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, Bidyut Bhawan, Slat Lake City, Kolkata-700091 3. The Secretary, West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, Bidyut Bhawan, Slat Lake City, Kolkata-700091 4. The Divisional Engineer, Nadia, West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, P.O.Kalyani,District-Nadia. 5. The Circle Manager, Nadia (D) Circle, West Bengal State Electrity Distribution Company Limited, Bidhan Bhawan, Central Park, Post Office-Kalyani, District-Nadia 6. The Circle Grievance Redressal Officer, Nadia (D) Circle, West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, Bidhan Bhawan Central Park, P.O.-Kalyani, District-Naida 7. The Senior Station Superintendent and Station Manager, Aranghata Group Electricity Supply, West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, Sabdalpur-District-Nadia. BEFORE HONBLE MEMBER : Sri Debasis Bhattacharya. HONBLE MEMBER : Sri Jagannath Bag. FOR THE COMPLANANT : Mr. Souptik Paria, Ld. Advocate FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTIES : Mr. Srijan Nayek, Ld. Advocate Sri Debasis Bhattacharya , Member
It is a complaint case under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in which the Complainant has made out that his residential house is situate and lying on the adjacent southern side of a village public road running from Aranghata-Barhatta Main Road to Arangata Railway Station through Aranghata-Masterpara and was a consumer of electricity in his residential house under service connection No. D/4813/A-185 since 1969. But, on 17.05.1994, the electricity was severed due to severe storm and the supply of electricity was disconnected. On 16.06.1994, he submitted an application to the Senior Station Superintendent and Station Manager, Aranghata Group Electric Supply praying for restoration of the supply of electricity, but without any avail. He filed writ application being C.O. No.187141 (W) of 1994 before the Honble Court which was disposed of by order dated 19.09.1994 directing the concerned authorities to fix up a pole for the restoration of the supply of the electricity to the house within thirty days from the date of communication of the order, and he had filed an application for contempt being Civil Rule No.7989 (W) of 1996, where the Electricity Authority submitted that they were ready and willing to comply with the order dated 19.09.1994 and they went to the spot for fixing a pole for restoration of the supply of electricity to the house of the applicant but they were prevented by his neighbours and the same was disposed of inter alia by directing the authorities to go to the spot and to supply electricity through the lines fixed by them with the help of Police. As no step was taken by the authorities, he submitted an application to the Station Superintendent concerned on 29.08.2001 praying for restoration of the supply of electricity and replied dated 11.01.2002 annexing a hand sketch map showing the proposed site for fixing a pole, which is within the land of two neighbours, namely, Kashinath Bhowmik and Baidyanath Bhomik and asked him to obtain a way leave (no objection) from the said two neighbours and the Pradhan of the local Gram Panchyat and accordingly, he submitted an application to the authorities concerned on 22.01.2002 by annexing therewith the said sketch map as modified by him by showing the existing electricity pole and showing the proposed site for fixing a pole on the public road for which no way leave would be necessary and praying for immediate restoration of the supply of electricity to his house. Thereafter, he submitted several applications to the different authorities of the West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited for restoration of supply of electricity to his house. Further, for the inaction on the part of the authorities concerned, he made writ application being W.P. No.5570 (W) of 2008 and by an order dated 23.04.2008, it was directed to the Station Manager concerned to restore the supply of electricity to his premises without any further delay but positively within two weeks from the date of communication of the order, if necessary, with Police help. On 29.04.2008, the Station Manager concerned visited his house along police officers of the local Police Outpost on 29.04.2008 in connection with the matter of restoration of supply. Thereafter, the Station Manager sent a letter dated 15.05.2008 to him stating inter alia that the order and the specific direction could not be complied with due to obstruction raised by the next door neighbours and in the circumstances a request was made to him to submit the necessary No Objection Certificate from his next door neighbours within seven days from the date of issue of the letter for restoration of his service connection. Lastly, he moved an application for contempt being C.P.A.N. No.1339 of 2008 and thereafter the Station Manager concerned restored the supply of electricity to his house in the month of April, 2009. For the deprivation of the right to get electricity for 14 years solely for the fault and negligent act of the authorities of the WBSEDCL (previously WBSEB), he is entitled to claim a sum of Rs.1 crore as compensation and damages.
On the other hand, the case of the WBSEDCL in their W.V. is that the complaint is barred by limitation, res judicata and principle of acquiescence and waiver, having no cause of action and also barred by pecuniary jurisdiction. The issues of deficiency in service have been adjudicated upon by the Honble Calcutta High Court who was pleased to pass an appropriate order without making any observations against the Company. Against such background, the complaint is liable to be dismissed in limine with costs. Further, prayer for compensation of Rs.1crore against the OPs is not tenable in law. Morevoer, the Complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Nadia with prayer for appropriate order of restoration of supply of electricity which was rejected by order dated 19.02.2003 considering the practical difficulties and the Complainant did not file any appeal against the said order. It has been made out that the dispute has been adjudicated upon twice by the Honble High Court and once by the District Forum, Nadia and thereafter by the Grievance Redressal Officer and no appeal against the order is pending, so the complaint is not maintainable in the eye of law. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it has been submitted that the complaint is liable to be dismissed in limine with costs.
The only question to be resolved in this matter is as to whether the complainant will be entitled to get any compensation from the OPs, or not.
Decision with reasons.
The case arose out of disconnection and dispute over the reconnection in respect of the electricity service connection No.D/4813/A-185 of the Complainant in his residential house. The line was admittedly got disconnected on 17.05.1994 due to severe storm, which was informed to the OP No.7 on 16.09.1994 for supply of electricity without any effect. Ultimately, it was restored in the month of April, 2009. In the meantime, he made frantic effort to get the desired and required reconnection by knocking the doors of the Honble Calcutta High Court by way of two writ petitions, two contempt petitions, and also once before the Ld. District Forum, Nadia, and it took nearly 15 years to get the desired result and relief and for that he had to bear the brunt and withstood great sufferings for himself and for the members of his family due to want of electricity. In fact, he came before this Commission after getting electricity back in his house, only for the purpose of getting a compensation of Rs.1 crore.
Ld. Advocate for the Complainant has submitted that the Complainant is an old customer of the OPs since 1964, whereas the incident of disconnection took place on 17.05.1994 to his existing service connection as the electricity pole fell down due to natural calamity. Chronologically, he appealed for restoration of connection on 16.06.1994, which was not done. Then, he went before the Honble Calcutta High Court on 19.9.1994 by writ, still the line was not restored by the OPs. So, on 19.08.1996, there was contempt application, but still the OPs did not supply electricity. Thereafter, on 11.01.2002, the OPs asked for way leave. Then, on 19.02.2003, he filed complaint case before the Ld. District Forum, Nadia, which was dismissed in the absence of sketch map. Further, for non- availability of electricity, his wife died on 14.06.2004. Thereafter, he again moved the Honble Calcutta High Court by a writ on 23.04.2008 in which it was directed to the OPs to restore electricity within two weeks. But, on 15.05.2008, NOC was called for by the OPs. Sketch map was given, and there was no requirement of any NOC on public road. Thereafter, there was contempt application and order dated 20.03.2009. After that, the line was restored on 01.04.2009 through the existing route. On 01.03.2010, he moved the Ld. Ombudsmen, but his appeal was dismissed on 31.10.2011. He further made out that under Section 43 of the Electricity Act, the OPs were obligated to provide electricity within one month, and this reconnection is applied for the first time and the usual mode is to take action by the existing route. There has been unfair trade practices by the OPs and they illegally called for NOC only to harass the Complainant. So, the prayer for compensation. He made out that break up of the claim of compensation of Rs.1 crore has been given in the concluding page of BNA of the Complanant.
Ld. Advocate for the OPs primarily made out that the case suffers from non-maintainability, mainly on the ground of limitation as the incident took place in the year 1994, whereas the complaint case has been made in 2011, and also on the ground of res judicata. The complainant failed to prove any deficiency in service of the OPs before the Honble Calcutta High Court. In fine, he sought dismissal of the complaint case with exemplary cost.
There have been successive writ applications by the Complainant before the Honble Calcutta High Court and also contempt applications by him. It has been contended by the Ld. Advocate for the OPs that in no such contempt application the Honble Calcutta High Court found fault and negligence on the part of the OPs. Documents also clearly show that the OPs could not function due to resistance by the neighbours of the Complainant. There has been no proof any laxity, delay and dereliction of duty on the part of the officials of the OP. The fault lied not with the OPs in any circumstances. There is no stated case of enmity of the OPs towards the Complainant. If any animosity existed, it was between the Complainant and his neighbours and the whole matter centered there. The Complainant has not sought any compensatory amount before the Honble Calcutta High Court, on whose order the reconnection was given effect. Further, he made a complaint case before the Ld. District Forum, Nadia being case No.90/2002 in which he made out these OP Nos. 7 and 4 as parties as OP Nos. 1 and 2, respectively, which was dismissed. There itself he came after eight years from the time when the matter was disposed of by the Honble Calcutta High Court. It was made out therein that the Complainant has not also filed any paper/ document showing that he has got a declaration from any civil court that he has a right of way through the path shown by him in the sketch map, through which he wants to get the electric connection. Further, no document has been produced to show that the said land is a Panchayet land over which general public have a right of way. And, this being the position, the Ld. District Forum, Nadia held that it is not in a position to help him getting the restoration of electric connection in his premises through the disputed pathway. Against such dismissal order, the Complainant did not prefer any appeal and the same got finality by virtue of Section 24 of the Consumer Protection Act. But this case has been filed before this Commission impleading as many as seven OPs claiming a compensation of Rs.1 crore. This alarming figure has got no basis at all on the face of the petition of complaint and the evidence thereof. Further, the case does not at all befit with the defining clauses of Section 2 (1) (c ) and (e) and/or (g) and/or
(r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and no compensation lies in favour of the Complainant. Any such case for compensation only may only lie before the civil court. In all such facts and circumstances of the case, there is no case of the Complainant to get any compensation from the OPs in this complaint case. Accordingly, the complaint case is liable to be dismissed.
Hence, Ordered That the complaint case be and the same is dismissed on contest without any order as to cost.
MEMBER MEMBER