State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Smt. Jharna Paul vs The General Manager, Cesc Ltd. on 16 February, 2015
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 First Appeal No. FA/382/2013 (Arisen out of Order Dated 28/02/2013 in Case No. CC/304/2012 of District North 24 Parganas DF, Barasat) 1. Smt. Jharna Paul W/o Naru Gopal Paul, 94, B.D. Mondal Ghat Road, Kolkata - 700 058, P.S. Belghoria, North 24 Pgs. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. The General Manager, CESC Ltd. Victoria House, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 700 001. 2. The District Engineer, C.E.S.C. Ltd. North Suberban Regional Office, 32, B.T. Road, Kamarhati, Kolkata - 700 058. 3. Assistant Manager, Commercial, C.E.S.C. Ltd. North Suberban Regional Office, 32, B.T. Road, Kamarhati, Kolkata - 700 058. 4. Commercial Executive, C.E.S.C. Ltd. North Suberban Regional Office, 32, B.T. Road, Kamarhati, Kolkata - 700 058. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. DEBASIS BHATTACHARYA PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. JAGANNATH BAG MEMBER For the Appellant: Miss. Rupa Maity , Mrs. Mousumi Chakraborty., Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. Srijan Nayak., Advocate ORDER STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 First Appeal No. FA/330/2013 (Arisen out of Order Dated 28/02/2013 in Case No. CC/304/2012 of District North 24 Parganas DF, Barasat) 1. The General Manager, CESC Ltd. Victoria House, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 700 001. 2. The District Engineer, CESC Ltd. North Subarban Regional Office, 32, B.T. Road, Kamarhati, Kolkata - 58. 3. Assistant Manager (Commercial), CESC Ltd. North Subarban Regional Office, 32, B.T. Road, Kamarhati, Kolkata - 58. 4. Commercial Executive, CESC Ltd. North Subarban Regional Office, 32, B.T. Road, Kamarhati, Kolkata - 58. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Smt. Jharna Paul W/o Naru Gopal Paul, 94, D.D. Mondal Ghat Road, Kolkata -76, P.S. - Belghoria, North 24 Pgs. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. DEBASIS BHATTACHARYA PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. JAGANNATH BAG MEMBER For the Appellant:
Mr. S. Nayak Mr. A. Mukhopadhyay Mr. S. Chatterjee, Advocate For the Respondent:
Ms. Mousumi chakraborty., Advocate A N D First Appeal No. FA/382/2013 (Arisen out of Order Dated 28/02/2013 in Case No. CC/304/2012 of District North 24 Parganas DF, Barasat)
1. Smt. Jharna Paul W/o Naru Gopal Paul, 94, B.D. Mondal Ghat Road, Kolkata - 700 058, P.S. Belghoria, North 24 Pgs.
...........Appellant(s) Versus
1. The General Manager, CESC Ltd.
Victoria House, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 700 001.
2. The District Engineer, C.E.S.C. Ltd.
North Suberban Regional Office, 32, B.T. Road, Kamarhati, Kolkata - 700 058.
3. Assistant Manager, Commercial, C.E.S.C. Ltd.
North Suberban Regional Office, 32, B.T. Road, Kamarhati, Kolkata - 700 058.
4. Commercial Executive, C.E.S.C. Ltd.
North Suberban Regional Office, 32, B.T. Road, Kamarhati, Kolkata - 700 058.
...........Respondent(s) BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. DEBASIS BHATTACHARYA PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. JAGANNATH BAG MEMBER For the Appellant:
Miss. Rupa Maity , Mrs. Mousumi Chakraborty., Advocate For the Respondent:
Mr. Srijan Nayak., Advocate ORDER Date: 16-02-2015 Sri Debasis Bhattacharya Both these appeals originate out of the impugned order dated 28-02-2013 in Case No. 304/2012 of the Ld. District Forum, North 24 Parganas, whereof the complaint case has been allowed in part on contest against the OPs. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, the parties thereof have moved the instant appeals.
Brief facts of the Complainant's case are that she applied before the OPs for an electric service connection to her tenanted room in the year 2006. Thereafter, a considerable time elapsed to sort out the illegal demand of the OPs upon the Complainant to clear the outstanding due of another person and ultimately in response to the offer letter of the OPs dated 27-08-2009, the Complainant paid Rs. 5,769/- on 27-10-2009. But, even after that, the OPs did not provide service connection to her which forced her to file a Writ before the Hon'ble High Court and ultimately as per the direction of the Hon'ble Court, the OPs provided service connection to the Complainant on 17-07-2012. Due to such lapses on the part of the OPs, the Complainant not only suffered monetary loss in pursuing legal proceedings, but she herself suffered acute mental stress and agony, her husband became a patient of acute asthma, also the education of her son got badly affected. Therefore, she filed the instant case for relief as per prayer of the complaint petition.
On the other hand, case of the OPs is that after compliance of formalities and payment of requisite fees, the OPs went to carry out the job of installation of electricity to the room of the Complainant, but due to vehement objection raised at site by the landlord, Mr. Partha Sarathi Aich Sarkar, they could not effect the service connection. Ultimately, as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta they effected the service connection. There was no intentional laches on their part. So, the instant case should be dismissed.
Point to be considered is whether the impugned order suffers from any factual/legal lacunae, or not.
Decision with reasons Ld. Advocate for the Complainant has submitted that in terms of Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003, a distribution licensee is duty bound to effect service connection to an applicant within one month from the receipt of application requesting such supply. However, in the instant case, the OPs effected the service connection after more than six years, that too at the intervention of the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta. She is a simple house wife and her husband has fallen sick because of complete apathy on the part of the CESC in the matter of providing service connection to her house. The alibi cited by the CESC behind not granting electric connection is not at all a justified one. The authority concerned could have taken police help to remove all potential obstacles in the way of effecting service connection to the house of the Complainant, but they did precious little to carry out the job. Such laches on the part of the OPs is arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, unjust, illegal and discriminatory in nature and also violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Due to such unlawful and deliberate negligent act on the part of the CESC, the Complainant as well as other family members became victim of untold sufferings and misery for more than six years. The award given by the Ld. District Forum is a pittance vis-à-vis the enormity of sufferings endured by the Complainant, not to mention the huge financial expenses she had to incur to get the service connection effected through a strenuous legal battle before the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta and as such, the impugned order be appropriately modified to give proper compensation to her.
Ld. Advocate for the OP, on the other hand, has made out that the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta did not find any deficiency in service on its part over the alleged delay in effecting service connection to the house of the Complainant. The Complainant initially applied for service connection in the year 2006. Thereafter, some correspondences were exchanged between the parties over an old outstanding due in respect of the case premises and after 13-05-2006, the Complainant did not turn up and remained silent for three years. So, automatically her application for electricity lapsed. After a lapse of three years, the Complainant applied for 30 K.W. domestic load on 09-04-2009. After compliance of formalities and payment of charge, the CESC personnel went to the site to carry out the job of installation of electricity in favour of the Complainant, but could not proceed with the matter due to vehement objection raised at site by the landlord of the Complainant. Finally, after the intervention of the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta, service line was effected to the Complainant on 27-07-2012. But, there also the Hon'ble Court did not sanction any amount as cost and/or compensation. So, the present claim is hit by the principles of res judicata. There was no intentional laches on the part of the OP, but they were helpless on the face of compelling circumstances those were beyond their control. As such, the impugned order be set aside.
The Complainant applied for service connection for the first time in the year 2006. In the wake of a dispute over an old outstanding due in respect of the Complainant's premises, some correspondences were exchanged between the parties from 20-02-2006 and 24-04-2006 and ever since the scheduled hearing was postponed on 13-05-2006 due to unavoidable circumstances, both sides went in deep slumber for three long years till the Complainant served an Advocate's notice upon the OP on 23-03-2009. It goes to show that service connection was not effected to the house of the Complainant in the year 2006 itself as some disputes remained unresolved despite exchange of correspondences between the parties for a brief period. Therefore, the OP cannot be solely held guilty of inaction for not effecting service connection in the year 2006.
No plausible reason is assigned by the Complainant behind remaining silent between the period from 13-05-2006 to 23-03-2009. The Complainant cannot avoid her responsibility for remaining inactive during the said period.
Since the year 2009, both sides engaged in legal battle before the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta and eventually service connection was restored to the premises of the Complainant on 27-07-2012 after the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta finally disposed the matter on 04-06-2012, but it did not order any cost.
From the above details, it is clear that initially the service connection could not be provided as disputes over an old outstanding due in respect of the premises in question remained unresolved and thereafter, due to objection of the landlord, the OP did not get free access to the house to carry out the job. While a distribution licensee is duty bound to effect service connection within one month from the date receipt of application from a prospective customer, the latter cannot escape its responsibility to provide clear and unequivocal way leave to the former.
The Ld. District Forum has adjudicated the case in favour of the Complainant holding the OP guilty of inaction during the period from 2006 to 2009 while documents on record sufficiently prove that the OP has all along been responsive to the complaints lodged by the Complainant/her legal counsel. Ever since the scheduled meeting was postponed on 13-05-2006, the Complainant totally disappeared from the scene till she resurfaced through her Ld. Counsel on 23-03-2009. That being the position, we do not find any cogent ground to saddle the distribution licensee, i.e., CESC with compensation and litigation cost as ordered by the Ld. District Forum and as such, the same is hereby set aside.
In the result, both the appeals are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, ORDERED that FA No. 330/2013 and FA No. 382/2013 be and the same are allowed and dismissed, respectively, on contest but without any order as to costs. The impugned order is hereby set aside.
The original copy of this order be kept in the file of FA/330/2013 and a photocopy thereof be kept in the file of FA/382/2013.
JAGANNATH BAG DEBASIS BHATTACHARYA MEMBER 33MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. DEBASIS BHATTACHARYA] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. JAGANNATH BAG] MEMBER