State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Kashinath Dey vs Sri Ashit Kumar Manna on 25 October, 2017
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 First Appeal No. A/739/2016 (Arisen out of Order Dated 18/07/2016 in Case No. CC/634/2014 of District Howrah) 1. Kashinath Dey S/o Lt. Taraknath Dey, 52, Hriday Krishna Banerjee Lane, P.S. Bantra, Dist. Howrah, Pin-711 101. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Sri Ashit Kumar Manna S/o Lt. Nityananda Manna, 20/18, Olabibitala Lane, P.S. Ghatterjeehat, Howrah - 711 104. 2. The District Engineer, CESC Ltd. Howrah Regional office, 433/1, G.T. Road(S), Howrah - 711 101. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. SAMARESH PRASAD CHOWDHURY PRESIDING MEMBER For the Appellant: Mr. Pradip Bag, Advocate For the Respondent: Amarnath Sanyal, Advocate Mr.Srijan Nayek, Mr. Alok Mukhopadhyay.Mr. Souvik Chatterjee., Advocate Dated : 25 Oct 2017 Final Order / Judgement
Date of Filing - 16.08.2016 Date of Hearing - 13.10.2017 The instant appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is at the behest of the Opposite Party No. 2 to impeach the Final Order dated 18.07.2016 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Howrah (for short, Ld. District Forum) in Consumer Complaint No. 634/2014. By the impugned order, the Ld. District Forum allowed the consumer complaint lodged by the Respondent No. 1 under Section 12 of the Act on contest with the direction upon the OP No.1/Respondent No.2 to shift the existing electric meter from Holding No.52/2, Hriday Krishna Banerjee Lane to Holding No.52, Hriday Krishna Banerjee Lane within 60 days from the date after collecting opinion of expert engineer and the OP No.2/Appellant was directed not to raise any obstruction in shifting the said meter.
The Respondent no. 1 being Complainant lodged the complaint asserting that he is a monthly tenant under OP No.2 in respect of a room situated at Holding No. 52, Hriday Krishna Banerjee Lane, P.S.- Bantra, District- Howrah. The complainant runs a business of kath gola (Timber Depot for selling wooden pieces) under the name and style M/s. Maa Bhobatarani Furniture Works and having electric connection in the said tenanted premises but the meter box was lying at Holding No.52/2, Hriday Krishna Banerjee Lane, P.S.- Bantra. The complainant alleged that suddenly in the month of August, 2014 exorbitant bills were coming for which the complainant through a letter in the month of November, 2014 intimated the CESC Officials for such exorbitant bills. The complainant has alleged that he is apprehending foul play by the landlord as the main switch and meter box is lying in the premises of him. Therefore, the complainant applied for shifting of meter on 27.11.2014 and paid a sum of Rs.200/-. The OP No.1 has held inspection but no effective result came out. Hence, the respondent no.1 approached the Ld. District Forum with prayer for several reliefs including shifting of existing electric meter standing in the name of complainant in Holding No.52/2, Hriday Krishna Banerjee Lane to Holding No.52, Hriday Krishna Banerjee Lane, P.S.- Bantra, compensation of Rs.50,000/- etc. The Respondent no.2 being OP No.1 by filing a written version has stated that the OP No.2 has raised vehement objection against such shifting of such meter and in case of shifting, expert opinion of the engineer would be required.
The appellant being OP No.2 by filing a separate written version has stated that the complainant intended to shift the meter with some ill motive and the dispute is pending before a competent Civil Court at Howrah.
After assessing the materials on record, the Ld. District Forum by the impugned final order allowed the complaint with the directions as indicated above, which prompted the OP no. 2/landlord to prefer this appeal.
I have considered the submission advanced by the Ld. Advocates appearing for the Appellant, Respondent No.1 and Respondent no. 2 respectively and also scrutinised the materials on record.
It is not in dispute that the respondent no.1 is a tenant under the appellant in respect of Holding No.52, Hriday Krishna Banerjee Lane, P.S.- Bantra, Dist- Howrah where he carries on business of kath gola (Timber Depot for selling wooden pieces) under the name and style M/s. Maa Bhobatarani Furniture Works. The Respondent No.1 has an electric meter being No.57159090043 which is commercial in nature. It signifies that the respondent no.1 carries on business through the said electric meter but the main switch is lying with Holding No.52/2, Hriday Krishna Banerjee Lane, P.S.- Bantra, Dist- Howrah which is under occupation of the appellant/landlord.
The record also goes to show that the respondent no.1 intended to shift his electric connection from Holding No.52/2 to Holding No.52 of Hriday Krishna Banerjee Lane, P.S.- Bantra, Dist- Howrah. An inspection was made by the CESC Ltd. but the CESC Ltd. has raised objection simply on the ground that the landlord has raised objection and further the accessibility of shifting is required to be tested through an engineer. During the pendency of the proceeding before the Ld. District Forum, the CESC Ltd. has not taken any steps for inspection through any competent person and as such simply on the ground of objection by the landlord, the respondent no.1/complainant should not suffer.
It is true that the meter is commercial in nature but the whole object is to see whether the purpose is commercial or not. Admittedly, the respondent no.1/complainant is running his business from Holding No.52 and as such when for the purpose of his convenience, the respondent no.1 is attempted to shift the meter in his premises being Holding No.52, there is hardly any reason to deprive the respondent no.1/tenant from enjoying the electricity at his own choice.
Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is the main provision casting an obligation upon every distribution licensee to give supply of electricity to the premises when the application by the owner or occupier of such premises is made and Sub Section (1) of Section 43 of the said Act enjoins upon the distribution licensee to give such supply of electricity to the owner or occupier of the premises, as the case may be, within one month after receipt of the application requiring such supply. Therefore, the only point has to be looked into whether the Complainant is an occupant of the premises or not. Admittedly, respondent no.1 is a tenant under the appellant in respect of Holding No.52, Hriday Krishan Banerjee Lane, P.S.- Bantra, Dist- Howrah. It means and indicates that the Respondent No.1 is an occupant of the premises as a statutory tenant.
In view of the provisions of Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003, as an occupier of the property or a part thereof, the complainant has a statutory right to call upon the distribution company (herein CESC Ltd.) to give him/her electricity, and once the requisite application was filed, the distribution company incurred a statutory obligation to give him electricity. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court reported in 2000 WBLR (Cal) 533 (Manju Mukul Guha - vs. - Pradip Kumar Mullick & Ors.) has observed that even an injunction order of the Civil Court directing the petitioner not to change the nature and character of the property cannot get in the way of his getting electricity from the distribution company. The landlord has no right to raise objection. It is a statutory right which cannot be curtailed by whim or fancy of any person including a landlord.
We must not be obsessed with the proposition of law that a Consumer Forum is meant for disposal of a consumer dispute in a summary way for a limited purpose. It has no bearings with an action of a Civil Court. The right, title, interest or tenancy right would be adjudicated by a competent Civil Court but since statute is no evil, all the authorities must adhere to the legislative command.
Considering the above, I do not find any loophole or infirmity in passing the order impugned. However, the Ld. District Forum should have specifically mentioned the electric meter number which should be shifted. Further when during the long period of pendency of the complaint before the Ld. District Forum the distribution licensee has not submitted any report showing any difficulty of shifting of meter, there was hardly any reason to give an opportunity to the respondent no.2/OP No.1 to collect any opinion from expert.
In view of the above, the impugned order is modified only to the extent that the respondent no.2/OP No.1 shall shift the electric meter stands in the name of respondent no.1/complainant being consumer No.57159090043 being consumer Id. No.57000386671 from Holding No.52/2, Hriday Krishan Banerjee Lane, P.S.- Bantra, Dist- Howrah to Holding No.52, Hriday Krishan Banerjee Lane, P.S.- Bantra, Dist- Howrah within 30 days after observing all the formalities and in this regard, appellant/landlord is directed not to raise any obstruction in the shifting of electric meter and in the event of any resistance, the respondent no.2/OP No.1 (CESC Ltd.) is directed to seek police assistance from Bantra P.S. and the I/C, Bantra P.S. is directed to render police assistance so that the order be executed in its letter and spirit.
With the above observations and directions, the instant appeal stands disposed of.
The Registrar of this Commission is directed to send a copy of this order to the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Howrah for information. [HON'BLE MR. SAMARESH PRASAD CHOWDHURY] PRESIDING MEMBER