State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Smt. Sipra Rani Sirkar & Ors. vs M/S. Cesc Ltd. & Anr. on 24 December, 2014
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION
WEST BENGAL
11A, Mirza Ghalib Street,
Kolkata - 700087
First Appeal No.
FA/912/2013
(Arisen out of Order
Dated 17/07/2013 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/30/2013 of District
South 24 Parganas DF, Alipore)
1.
Smt. Sipra Rani Sirkar
W/o
Late Ranjit Kumar Sarkar, 115, Amrita Lal Mukherjee Road, Kolkata - 700
063.
2.
Sri Srikanta Sirkar
S/o
Late Ranjit Kumar Sarkar, 115, Amrita Lal Mukherjee Road, Kolkata - 700
063.
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1.
M/s. CESC Ltd.
South
West Regional Office, P-18, Taratala Road, Kolkata - 700 088.
2.
Sri Rabindra Nath Sirkar
207
N, Bakrahat Road, Kolkata - 700 063.
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE
MR. DEBASIS BHATTACHARYA PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE
MR. JAGANNATH BAG MEMBER
For
the Appellant:
Mr.
Barun Prasad Mr. Subrata Mondal, Advocate
For
the Respondent:
Mr.
Srijan Nayak., Advocate
Mr.
Sankar Prasad Kar., Advocate
ORDER
Date:
24-12-2014 Sri Debasis Bhattacharya This appeal is directed against the order dt. 17-07-2013 in Case No. 30/2013, passed by the Ld. District Forum, South 24 Parganas, whereby the complaint case has been dismissed on contest.
Being highly aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, the Complainants thereof have jointly preferred this appeal.
In short, case of the Complainants is that the Complainant No. 1, on consent from the Complainant No. 2, applied for effecting electric service connection to the scheduled premises. After inspecting the premises on 19-09-2011, the OP No. 1 issued MASD Bill, which the Complainant paid on 01-02-2012. The CESC men visited the premises of the Complainant in February 2012 for the purpose of effecting connection, but due to the obstruction of the OP No. 2, could not effect such connection though fact remains that the OP No. 2 has got no right, title and interest in the suit property and has no rhyme or reason to obstruct in the supply of electricity to the premises of the Complainants. Subsequently, the Complainant went to the office of the OP No. 1 for taking steps for service connection, but the latter did not pay any heed. There is no impediment to enable the Complainants from getting electric connection in the suit property. However, the OP No. 1, in spite of receiving notice from the Complainants, is neglecting to provide service connection to the premises in question, which is tantamount to deficiency in service. Therefore, the Complainants filed the instant case in order to get service connection to the suit premises.
The case of the OP No. 1, on the other hand, is that on receipt of an application for electric supply at the suit premises from the Complainant No. 1, necessary inspection was made and offer of supply of electricity was given by them vide reference no. 14/14112/11.
After compliance of necessary formalities by the applicant, the OP no. 1 deputed its men to fix a meter to the house of the applicant on 18-02-2012, but they could not do the job due to objection raised at site by the OP No. 2. The OP No. 2 stated them that a court case is pending between the parties regarding possession of the suit premises. They have nothing to do with the bilateral dispute between the Complainants and the OP No. 2 and they are willing to provide service connection in case the Ld. District Forum so directs.
It is stated by the OP No. 2 that in view of a dispute over the property in question, a Title Suit No. 08230 of 2011 has been filed before the Ld. Civil Judge (Jr. Division), 5th Court, Alipore and a petition under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed for the purpose of restraining the Complainant (therein the Defendant) from digging the vacant portion of the suit property, making any construction, committing any overt act and from changing the nature and character of the suit property and also from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff. The Complainant illegally mutated his name in respect of the said property by suppressing the material fact of the aforesaid suit. He has got every right to raise objection in the matter of giving electric connection and installing electric meter in the premises in question during the pendency of the title suit, as the matter is sub judice.
Point to be considered in this appeal is if the impugned order suffers from any factual/legal incongruity, or not.
Decision with reasons Ld. Advocate for the Appellants has submitted that though a civil suit is pending between the Complainants and the Respondent No. 2 over a Deed of Gift in respect of the property in question, there is no restraining order from the said Ld. Court in the matter of taking electricity by the Appellants. In fact, the Kolkata Municipal Corporation has granted mutation certificate in their favour. More so, the Appellants are holding possession in the suit property. In such facts and circumstances, the Appellants are entitled to get service connection from the Respondent No. 1 and there is no basis behind dismissing their complaint by the Ld. District Forum. He has referred to a decision of the Honble Supreme Court reported in 2011 (6) Supreme 1, and two decisions of this Commission, in FA No. 152/2012 [reported in 2013 (2) CPR 53 (W.B.)] and in FA No. 717/2012.
Ld. Advocate for the Respondent No. 1 has submitted that some initial deposit has been made by the Appellants in the matter, but the electricity connectivity could not be provided in the suit premises of the Appellants in the face of vehement objection from the side of the Respondent No. 2, which is a private dispute between them.
There is as such no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part. The cardinal principle is to provide free access to them by the person who demands electricity from the distribution licensee, on that it is their onerous duty to make installation of the necessary equipment to provide electricity, but otherwise, they should not be jeopardized.
Further, there is a civil suit pending in between the Appellants and the Respondent No. 2. He has referred to a decision of the Honble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2011 SC 2897 and a decision of this Commission reported in (2012) 1 WBLR (CPSC) 662.
Ld. Advocate for the Respondent No. 2 has submitted that the matter of the Deed of Gift in favour of the Appellants is under challenge before the Ld. Civil Court, and by suppressing the said suit, the Appellants have made the complaint case before the Ld. District Forum. This has purposely been done by the Appellants to stake their right over the disputed property.
The issue which arises for our consideration in the present appeal is whether the proceedings before the Consumer Forum should remain stayed and await the decision of the outcome of the proceedings pending before the Ld. Civil Court in question.
The Honble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, Thirumurugan Co-operative Agricultural Credit Society vs. M. Lalitha & Ors. (2004) 1 SCC 305, held that having due regard to the scheme of the Consumer Protection Act and the purpose sought to be achieved to protect the interest of the consumers better, its provisions are to be interpreted broadly, positively and purposefully to give meaning to additional/extended jurisdiction, particularly when Section 3 seeks to provide remedy under the Act in addition to other remedies provided under other Acts unless there is a clear bar. Some of the relevant findings of the Honble Supreme Court in that matter are reproduced hereinbelow:-
"From the statement of objects and reasons and the scheme of 1986 Act, it is apparent that the main objective of the Act is to provide for better protection of the interest of the consumer and for that purpose to provide for better redressal, mechanism through which cheaper, easier, expeditious and effective redressal is made available to consumers. To serve the purpose of the Act, various quasi judicial forums are set up at the district, State and National level with wide range of powers vested in them. These quasi judicial forums, observing the principles of natural justice, are empowered to give relief of a specific nature and to award, wherever appropriate, compensation to the consumers and to impose penalties for non- compliance of their orders.
As per Section 3 of the Act, as already stated above, the provisions of the Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation to any other provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Having due regard to the scheme of the Act and purpose sought to be achieved to protect the interest of the consumers, better the provisions are to be interpreted broadly, positively and purposefully in the context of the present case to give meaning to additional/extended jurisdiction, particularly when Section 3 seeks to provide remedy under the Act in addition to other remedies provided under other Acts unless there is clear bar.
It is clear from the above observations of the Honble Court that as per Section 3 of the Act, the provisions of the Act are in addition to and not in derogation of any other provision of any other law for the time being enforced. Having due regard to the scheme of the Act and the purpose sought to be achieved to protect the interest of the consumers better, the provisions are to be interpreted broadly, positively and purposefully to give meaning to additional/extended jurisdiction, particularly when Section 3 seeks to provide remedy under the Act in addition to other remedies provided under other Acts unless there is a clear bar. In the instant case, the Respondent No. 2 has not placed any restraining/injunction order of the Ld. Civil Court in the matter of effecting service connection to the premises of the Complainant No. 1.
Suffice to say, therefore, that the remedies sought for in the proceedings before the Ld. Civil Court and the Ld. District Forum being independent of each other, and given the fact that no injunction is in force from any competent Court of Law, there is no bar giving service connection to the premises of the Complainants as prayed for. We, therefore, hold that the Ld. District Forum erred in dismissing the petition of complaint of the Complainants and the same is, accordingly, set aside.
In the result, the appeal succeeds.
Hence, ORDERED That the appeal be and the same is allowed on contest against the Respondents, but without any order as to costs. The impugned order is hereby set aside.
Consequently, the complaint case stands allowed. OP No. 1 is directed to install electric service connection to the premises of the Complainant No. 1 within a period of 45 days hence, if necessary, with the help of the local police station.
JAGANNATH BAG DEBASIS BHATTACHARYA MEMBER MEMBER