State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sanjoy Maity vs Sri Tarun Mondal on 25 May, 2016
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 First Appeal No. A/815/2015 (Arisen out of Order Dated 02/07/2015 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/1/2015 of District Howrah) 1. Sanjoy Maity S/o, Lt. Shatrughna Maity, Vill, P.O & P.S - Shyampur, Dist - Howrah, Pin - 711 314. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Sri Tarun Mondal S/o, Lt. Sidheswar Mondal, Vill, P.O & P.S - Shyampur, Dist - Howrah, Pin - 711 314. 2. The Chairman, WBSEDCL. Bidyut Bhavan, Salt Lake City, Kolkata - 700 091. 3. The Station Manager, A Jodhys CCC, WBSEDCL. A Jodhys, Belpukur, Dist - Howrah, Pin - 711 312. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. SAMARESH PRASAD CHOWDHURY PRESIDING MEMBER For the Appellant: Ms. Pallabi Mazumder Mr. Souma Subhra Roy, Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. Amit Panchal., Advocate Mr.Srijan Nayek, Mr. Alok Mukhopadhyay., Advocate Mr.Srijan Nayek, Mr. Alok Mukhopadhyay., Advocate ORDER Judgement on - Wednesday, 25th day of May, 2016. HON'BLE SAMARESH PRASAD CHOWDHURY, PRESIDING MEMBER JUDGEMENT
Challenge in this Appeal u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is to the Final Order dated 02.07.2015 made by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Howrah (for short, Ld. District Forum) in consumer complaint no. 01/2015 whereby the consumer complaint initiated by the respondent herein u/s 12 of the Act was allowed on contest with cost. By its order the Ld. District Forum directed the Respondent nos. 1 & 2 to supply fresh electric connection in the Premises of Respondent no.1 through the passage found suitable by them for drawing the line and also installing a new meter within thirty days from the date of the order.
The Respondent no.1 herein being complainant initiated the complaint u/s 12 of the Act alleging that he is a below poverty level card holder and permanently residing at Village + P.O.+P.S. Shyampur, District- Howrah and joint owners with his wife in respect of a property measuring about 01 decimel of land at Plot no. 2740 under Mouza Shyampur. The complainant has stated that they have no domestic electric connection and in order to get the service connection, on the basis of quotation of the Station Manager of WBSEDCL, they deposited the amount of Rs.615/- on 02.11.2012. But the OP no.2 i.e. the Respondent no.3 herein did not take positive steps for giving electric connection in connivance with the OP no.3 i.e. the appellant herein. Hence, the complaint with prayer for certain reliefs like - a) to direct the OP nos. 1 & 2 to supply the electric line at the property of the complainant; b) to direct OP no.3 not to obstruct OP nos. 1 & 2 for installation of electric connection; c) to direct Op nos. 1 & 2 to pay compensation amounting to Rs.50,000/- and cost of Rs.30,000/- for causing physical and mental harassment and d) Rs.10,000/- for litigation cost etc. The Respondent nos. 2 & 3 herein being OP nos. 1& 2 by filing their written versions submitted that they are ready and willing to give electric connection to the complainant but due to obstruction of Op no.3, they could not provide the same.
The appellant herein being OP no.3 by filing a separate written version disputed the allegations made by the complainant contending inter alia that he is the contiguous neighbour of the complainant and instituted a suit being T.S. No.17/1998 in the Court of Ld. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Uluberia wherein he got a decree in respect of Plot No.2740 under Khatian No. 207 of Mouza-Shyampur. He has further stated that the complainant is trying to install the electricity line through his personal property by force.
After assessing the materials on record, the Ld. District Forum by the impugned order allowed the consumer complaint with the directions, as indicated above, which prompted the OP no.3 to prefer this appeal.
I have scrutinised the materials on record and considered the submission advanced by the Ld. Advocates appearing for the parties.
Having heard the Ld. Advocates for the respective parties and on assessing the materials available with the record, it reveals that the Respondent no.1 along with his wife claiming themselves as joint owners in respect of a property measuring about 01 decimals of land situated at Plot no. 2740 under J.L. No.79 of Mouza + P.S.- Shyampur, District-Howrah had applied for domestic electric connection in their dwelling house. Accordingly, the Respondent no.3 issued a quotation in favour of the Respondent no.1 and directed the Respondent no.1 to deposit a sum of Rs. 615/- for service connection charges. In accordance with the direction of the quotation, Respondent no.1 deposited the said amount on 02.11.2012. Needless to say, under the Electricity Act, 2003 after payment of the quotation money, the electrical authority is bound to give connection within the stipulated date as prescribed in the Act. However, the electric connection could not be provided in the house of the Respondent no.1 owing to obstruction raised by the appellant.
Ms. Pallabi Mazumder, the Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant has submitted that his client instituted one suit being T.S. No. 17/1998 against his co-sharers with a prayer for decree of declaration of Title and Partition and the said Suit has been decreed in final form and according to the said decree, his client has right and title in respect of 07 decimal of land in Plot no.2740 under Khatian no.270 of Mouza & P.S.- Shyampur. Therefore, if the electric connection is taken through the passage belong to the appellant, certainly the appellant will be seriously prejudiced.
Ld. Advocate for the respondent no.1 on the other hand has drawn our attention to the title deed stands in the name of his client and submitted that his client has every right to enjoy the electric connection and in absence of the same, respondent no.1 is facing serious difficulties.
Ld. Advocate appearing for respondent nos. 2 & 3 has contended that they are ready to comply with the order of the Ld. District Forum. It has also been submitted on behalf of Distribution Company that the respondent no.1 being a valued consumer should be provided with electric connection.
I have considered the rival contention of the parties. Admittedly, the respondent no.1 has his own house where he intends to install electricity connection. With that aim in view, the respondent no.1 has already deposited the quotation money. It means and indicates that being satisfied about the claim of respondent no.1, the respondent nos. 2 & 3 agreed to provide electric connection in the residence of respondent no.1. In this civilised world it is unexpected that a person will spend his days without any electric connection, particularly when he is agreed to bear the bill as consumer. It is not in dispute that there is no order of injunction passed by any Civil Court to restrain the respondent nos. 2 & 3 to provide the electricity connection in the house of respondent no.1.
If the appellant feels that for installation of electricity, he would suffer in any way he may approach to the Civil Court for redressal of his grievances. But being a consumer, the respondent no.1 is certainly entitled to relief against the service provider i.e. respondent nos. 2 & 3. The Ld. District Forum has rightly observed that the respondent nos. 2 & 3 must take appropriate measure for providing fresh electric connection in the residence of respondent no.1 through the passage found suitable by them and in case of any obstruction by the appellant, they are at liberty to take help of legal authority.
Therefore, I do not find any reason to hold any contrary view of the Ld. District Forum. In other words, the impugned order is based on sound legal principle and in consonance with the aim and object behind the Legislation of the Act, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order impugned. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. The appeal being harassing one, it should be dismissed with costs which I quantify at Rs.5,000/-.
Consequently, the appeal is dismissed on contest with cost of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid by the appellant to the respondent no.1 and respondent nos. 2 & 3 at Rs. 2,500/- each.
The Final Order dated 02.07.2015 passed by the Ld. District Forum in C.C. No. 01/2015 is hereby affirmed. [HON'BLE MR. SAMARESH PRASAD CHOWDHURY] PRESIDING MEMBER