State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mr. Tarun Kr. Ghosh vs Mrs. Sabita Ghosh & Others on 4 September, 2013
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission West Bengal BHABANI BHAVAN (GROUND FLOOR) 31, BELVEDERE ROAD, ALIPORE KOLKATA 700 027 S.C. CASE NO. : FA/197/2013 (Arisen out of judgement dt. 5.2.13 of DCDRF, Howrah in Complaint Case No. HDF 151 of 2012) DATE OF FILING : 22.02.2013 DATE OF FINAL ORDER: 04.09.2013 APPELLANT Mr. Tarun Kr. Ghosh S/o Late Ananga Mohan Ghosh 1/24, Chandra Kr. Banerjee Lane Howrah-711 102 Dist. Howrah. RESPONDENTS 1. Mrs. Sabita Ghosh W/o Jagannath Ghosh 1/24, Chandra Kumar Banerjee Lane Howrah-711 102 Dist. Howrah. 2. CESC Limited Represented by the District Engineer Howrah Regional Office 433/1, G.T.Road (N) Howrah-711 101. 3. Deputy Manager (Commercial) CESC Ltd. Howrah Regional Office 433/1, G.T.Road (North) Howrah-711 101. BEFORE : MEMBER : MR. S.COARI MEMBER : MR. D.BHATTACHARYA FOR THE APPELLANT : Ms. Sumita Roy Chowdhury, Ld. Advocate FOR THE RESPONDENT : Mr. Asis Bhattacharyee, Ld. Advocate Mr. Srijan Nayak, Ld. Advocate : O R D E R :
MR. S.COARI, LD. MEMBER The present Appeal has been directed against the judgement and order dt. 5.2.13 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Howrah, in Complaint Case No. HDF 151 of 2012 wherein the Ld. District Forum allowed the petition of complaint on contest against the OP Nos. 1 & 2 and dismissed the same without cost against the OP No. 3, thereby directing the OP Nos. 1 & 2 to install the metered connection (loop) within 45 days after observing all other technical formalities including inspection/realization of MASD Bills in the residence of the complainant at the schedule premises from the date of this order giving top most priority and also restraining the OP No. 3 from causing any disturbances at the time of inspection/installation of metered connection (loop). If there is any resistance by anyone including the OP No. 3 against such metered connection (loop) to the scheduled premises, the OP Nos. 1 & 2, CESC Authority, shall be at liberty to take necessary assistance or protection from Howrah Police Station.
The case of the complainant/Respondent before the Ld. District Forum, in brief, was that the complainant submitted her application dt. 26.7.10 before the OP/CESC Ltd. after payment of EMD of Rs. 500/- for new metered supply (loop) at the scheduled place in the tone of load 0.40 kw (domestic). But the electric connection and installation of meter, etc. could not be effected due to objection at the instance of the OP No. 3 and hence, the Consumer Complaint for proper redressal.
The OP Nos. 1 & 2, i.e. CESC Ltd., contested the case by filing a written version thereby denying and disputing all the material averments mentioned in the petition of complaint contending, inter alia, that CESC was always ready and willing to give electric connection to the complainant by installing a new meter as per norms and rules framed under the Electricity Act. But as there was resistance at the instance of the OP No. 3, the work could not be completed/implemented. There was no negligence at the instance of the OP Nos. 1 & 2, as claimed by the complainant and that the petition of complaint was liable to be dismissed.
The OP No. 3 contested the case by filing a separate written version contending, inter alia, that there were some civil disputes and litigations about the ownership and property right over the scheduled property. The other owners in respect of the scheduled property having not been impleaded in the Consumer Complaint the same was not maintainable. The prayer of the complainant for having a separate metered electric connection was not permissible under the law and the petition of complaint was liable to be dismissed.
Ld. District Forum while disposing of the petition of complaint has observed that the complainant having been successful in substantiating his case by adducing and producing cogent and reliable evidence the complainant was entitled to the reliefs, as prayed for. The pleas raised at the instance of the OP No. 3 is not at all sustainable nor the same are to be considered for the purpose of adjudication of the Consumer Complaint, which directly comes under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant being very much entitled to have a separate metered electric connection in the capacity of a Consumer the complainant was entitled to the reliefs as prayed for and accordingly, disposed of the petition of complaint in favour of the complainant, as mentioned above.
The only moot question that revolves round the present Appeal is as to whether the Ld. District Forum was justified enough in disposing of the petition of complaint in the manner as mentioned above.
DECISION WITH REASONS At the time of hearing the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant/OP No. 3 has submitted that the Ld. District Forum has utterly failed to appreciate the actual state of affairs and as such, has arrived at a wrong and improper decision, which is not at all sustainable under the law.
According to the Ld. Advocate, when there is no dispute about the proprietorship of the property in question and that it is also not in dispute that all the owners of the scheduled property have not been impleaded in the Consumer Complaint, the same is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The Ld. Advocate has further submitted that the complainant has utterly failed to substantiate that he is at least one of the owners in respect of the scheduled property and on this score alone the impugned judgement is liable to be set aside.
While concluding his submissions the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has submitted before us that the Ld. District Forum having ignored this vital aspect of the Consumer Complaint has arrived at a wrong and improper decision and accordingly the same is liable to be set aside.
We have duly considered the submissions so put forward on behalf of the Appellant and have also gone through the materials on record including the pleadings of the parties and the impugned judgement and find that in this case the complainant has come forward with a case to the effect that in spite of the fact that the complainant has applied for a separate metered connection from CESC after observing all the necessary and connected formalities including deposit of fees, the same could not be effected and hence, the petition of complaint. The CESC Ltd. has come forward with a case to the effect that CESC was always ready and willing to effect electric connection through a separate meter to the complainant, but as the OP No. 3/Appellant has put up resistance, the same could not be effected. We find much substance in the submission so put forward by the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant/Respondent, according to whom, in a case of present nature, whether all the owners are impleaded in the Consumer Complaint or not is not at all necessary. When there is no dispute about the possession of the premises in question by the complainant, even in the capacity of an occupier, the complainant is very much entitled to have separate metered connection as per rules and regulations framed under the Electricity Act. In this regard, the Ld. Advocate for the complainant has also submitted that the standpoint of the CESC also supports the case of the complainant and the Ld. District Forum having rightly appreciated the actual state of affairs has passed the impugned judgement after considering the cases of the respective party and the legal proposition involved and accordingly, the same is very much sustainable under the law. In this regard, we also take note of the fact that as the Appellant/OP No. 3 has put up resistance in the matter of effecting separate electric connection to the complainant, CESC Ltd. could not effect the same and the Ld. District Forum has rightly restrained the OP No. 3/Appellant in this regard and even permitted the CESC Ltd. to obtain police help, if necessary, in relation to this matter.
Having considered the present Appeal in the light of above discussion we find no merit in the present Appeal and accordingly, we are not inclined to interfere with the finding of the Ld. District Forum, which, in our opinion, should be confirmed. In the result, the Appeal fails.
Hence, it is ORDERED that the Appeal stands dismissed on contest but without any order as to costs. The impugned judgment stands confirmed.
MEMBER MEMBER