State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sudip Koley vs Dipankar Koley on 1 March, 2017
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 First Appeal No. A/936/2015 (Arisen out of Order Dated 05/08/2015 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/409/2014 of District Howrah) 1. Sudip Koley S/o Late Hari Charan Koley, Vill. Puillya, P.S. Jagacha, Dist. Howrah, Pin -711 302. 2. Pradip Koley S/o Late Hari Charan Koley, Vill. Puillya, P.S. Jagacha, Dist. Howrah, Pin -711 302. 3. Sanjib Koley S/o Late Hari Charan Koley, Vill. Puillya, P.S. Jagacha, Dist. Howrah, Pin -711 302. 4. Smt. Sova Koley W/o Late Hari Charan Koley, Vill. Puillya, P.S. Jagacha, Dist. Howrah, Pin -711 302. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Dipankar Koley S/o Late Tarapada Koley, Vill. Puillya, P.S. Jagacha, Dist. Howrah, Pin -711 302. 2. The Station Manager, WBSEDCL Andul Mauri Gr. Electric Supply, P.O. Andul Mauri, P.S. Domjur, Dist. Howrah - 711 302. 3. WBSEDCL Andul Mauri Gr. Electric Supply, P.O. Andul Mauri, P.S. Domjur, Dist. Howrah - 711 302. 4. Mani Koley D/o Late Haricharan Koley, Vill. Puillya, P.S. Jagacha, Dist. - Howrah - 711 302. 5. Tapasi Koley D/o Late Haricharan Koley, Vill. Puillya, P.S. Jagacha, Dist. - Howrah - 711 302. 6. Mahamaya Koley D/o Late Haricharan Koley, Vill. Puillya, P.S. Jagacha, Dist. - Howrah - 711 302. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. SAMARESH PRASAD CHOWDHURY PRESIDING MEMBER For the Appellant: Mr. Somnath Kar, Advocate For the Respondent: Ms. Malabika Mukherjee., Advocate Dated : 01 Mar 2017 Final Order / Judgement
Date of Filing - 26.08.2015 Date of Hearing - 16.02.2017 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 Nos.3(a), 3(b), 4 & 5 to impeach the Final Order dated 05.08.2015 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Howrah (for short, Ld. District Forum) in Consumer Complaint no. 409/2014 whereby the consumer complaint initiated by the Respondent no.1under Section 12 of the Act was allowed on contest against all the OPs with direction upon Respondent nos.2 & 3 to install electric connection in the house of Respondent no.1 with a further direction upon the Appellants not to obstruct by raising any objection in installation of the said electric connection.
The Respondent no.1herein Sri Dipankar Koley being Complainant lodged the complaint asserting that he is a co-sharer in respect of Plot No.458 at Mouja, Puillya, P.S.- Jagachha, Dist- Howrah and has been living there with his family members and a partition suit in between him and the OP nos. 4 to 5 is going on. The Complainant has stated that on account of his poor financial condition, he could not connect the electric connection and faced enormous difficulties. In order to get electric connection of his premises, he applied before OP nos. 1 & 2 and fulfilled all the requirements but OP nos. 3 to 5 are raising objection and as such OP nos. 1 & 2 in collusion with them are depriving him from getting electric connection. Hence, the Respondent no.1 approached the Ld. District Forum with prayer for direction upon the OP nos. 1 & 2 to give electric connection to him and a further direction upon OP nos. 3 to 5 not to make any obstruction in any manner in providing electric connection, to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- and costs.
The Respondent nos. 2 & 3 being OP nos. 1 & 2 by filing a written version have stated that they are ready and willing to effect the new electric service connection if the Complainant provided Proper Way Leave and there is no obstruction from the side of OP nos. 3 to 5.
The Appellants i.e. OP nos. 3 to 5 by filing a separate written version have stated that the Complainant has no passage for their ingress and egress over the said property with which they are intending to take electric connection. They have also stated that the Complainant is attempting to take electric connection through or over the property of them lying and situated at R.S. Plot Nos. 429 & 430 and as such the complaint should be dismissed.
After assessing the materials on record, the Ld. District Forum by the impugned final order allowed the complaint with certain directions upon the Appellants and Respondent nos. 2 to 6 as indicated above. Being aggrieved by that order, OP nos. 3(a), 3(b), 4 & 5 have come up in this Commission with the present appeal.
We have considered the submission advanced by the Ld. Advocates appearing for the Appellants, Respondent no. 1and Respondent nos. 2 & 3. We have also scrutinised the materials on record.
Having heard the Ld. Advocates for the respective parties and on going through the materials on record, it would reveal that the Respondent no.1 had applied for new service connection of electricity at his premises on 29.05.2014 to the Respondent no.2. Accordingly, one spot quotation was issued to the Respondent no.1 and in compliance with that quotation, the Respondent no.1 has deposited Rs.400/- towards house service connection charge and Rs.685/- towards security deposit on 02.06.2014. Thereafter, for effecting new electric connection at the premises of Respondent no.1, one Letter of Intent was issued by Respondent no.2 to one M/s. Monosha Electrical on 23.06.2014. Accordingly, the said company tried to effect service connection at the premises of the Respondent no.1 on 20.07.2014 but the same could not be done due to objection raised at site by OP nos. 3 to 5.
The materials on record goes to show that a civil dispute between the parties being T.S. No.64/1990 is pending before the Ld. 3rd Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Howrah and in that suit, by an order dated 19.04.2013 the parties were directed to maintain status quo over the suit property in respect of nature and character and possession till disposal of the suit. However, the licensing authority i.e. WBSEDCL was not a party to that suit. In such a situation, a question came for adjudication before the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta whether Civil Court's order of injunction can stand in the way of installation of electric connection? In (2010) 3 WBLR (Cal) 539 (Sk. Asgar - vs. - The State of West Bengal & Ors.) answering to the question, it has been observed that in view of the provisions of Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003, as an occupier of the property or part thereof, the petitioner has a statutory right to call upon the distribution company to give him electricity, and once the requisite application was filed, the distribution company incurred a statutory obligation, to give him electricity. Therefore, the order of Civil Court which is binding upon the private parties cannot bind upon the distribution company to supply electricity to the Respondent no.1.
The Respondent no.1 is the co-sharer of the property and as such when Appellant no.2 could take electric connection, I do not find any reason why Respondent no.1 would be deprived from getting the Way Leave for installation of electric connection. The Ld. District Forum has rightly observed that in the modern days no one can live without water and electricity and the right of enjoying the electricity by the Respondent no.1 cannot be curtailed by the whim or fancy of any other person.
In view of the above, the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed on contest with costs of Rs.5,000/- to be paid by the Appellants to Respondent no.1 i.e. Complainant of the case.
The impugned order is hereby affirmed.
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