State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ramkhilaban Paswan vs Tarak Das on 16 October, 2017
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 First Appeal No. A/315/2017 (Arisen out of Order Dated 22/02/2017 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/264/2016 of District Kolkata-III(South)) 1. Ramkhilaban Paswan S/o Lt. Bishnu Paswan, 63A, Tollygunge Road, P.S. - Charu Market, Kolkata - 700 033. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Tarak Das S/o Lt. Narayan Chandra Das, 63A, Tollygunge Road, P.S. - Charu Market, Kolkata - 700 033. 2. The District Engineer, CESC Ltd. South Regional Office, 6, Mandiville Gardens, Kolkata - 700 019. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. SAMARESH PRASAD CHOWDHURY PRESIDING MEMBER For the Appellant: Mr. Partha Sarathi Roy, Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. Udayan Roy, Mr.Prosenjit Barman, Mr. Srijan Nayak, Mr.Alok Mukhopadhyay,Mr. Suvendu Das,Mr. Saikat Mali, Advocate Dated : 16 Oct 2017 Final Order / Judgement
Date of Filing - 17.03.2017 Date of Hearing - 18.09.2017 The instant appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is at the behest of the Complainant Ramkhilaban Paswan to impeach the Judgement/Final Order dated 22.02.2017 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, Unit-III (for short, Ld. District Forum) in Consumer Complaint no. 264/2016 whereby the consumer complaint initiated by the Complainant under Section 12 of the Act was dismissed on contest.
The Appellant herein being Complainant lodged the complaint asserting that he was a bonafide tenant in respect of one room at Premises no.63A, Tollyguange Road, P.S.- Charu Market, Kolkata - 700033 at a rental of Rs.545/- per month payable according to English calendar. The complainant has alleged that in the month of March, 2016, the OP No.1 illegally claimed Rs.845/- as monthly rent for which he is going on depositing the monthly rent from March, 2016 onwards before the Ld. Controller. Then he applied for installation of new electric connection for domestic purpose. On 01.06.2016, the OP No.2/CESC Ltd. held local inspection but without any cogent reason has not supplied the electricity in his tenanted premises. Hence, the Appellant approached the Ld. District Forum with prayer for certain directions including installation of electricity at his tenanted premises.
The Respondent no. 1 being OP no. 1 by filing a written version has stated that the complainant is enjoying the electricity through the electric meter provided for his tenanted accommodation.
The Respondent no.2 being OP No.2 in their written version has stated that if the Forum directs they are ready to install the electric meter in the premises of the complainant.
After assessing the materials on record, the Ld. District Forum by the impugned judgement/final order dismissed the complaint with an observation that the Complainant failed to prove that the OP No.1 has made any obstruction at the time of installation of electricity by OP No.2.
I have considered the submission advanced by the Ld. Advocates appearing for the Appellant, Respondent No.1 and Respondent no.2 respectively and scrutinised the materials on record.
Undisputedly, the appellant was a tenant under respondent no.1 in respect of one room, one kitchen with common bath and privy at premises No.63A, Tollyguange Road, P.S.- Charu Market, Kolkata - 700033 at a rental of Rs.545/- per month payable according to English calendar. It is also not in dispute that the appellant is going on paying rent from March, 2016 onwards by Rent Control Challan. The overwhelming evidence on record clearly suggests that the appellant is a tenant under respondent no.1 in respect of the premises in question. It also remain undisputed that owing to landlord-tenant dispute, the appellant had applied for a electric connection and approached respondent no.2/CESC Ltd. In their written version, the respondent no.2 has categorically stated that if the Forum so directs, they will give supply to the appellant after observing all the formalities. It is not in dispute that the appellant has already deposited the installation charges etc. Ld. Advocate for the respondent no.1 has submitted that the appellant being tenant is getting supply of electicity from Meter No.4591695 stands in the name of Smt. Bhabarani Nandi. Evidently, the appellant is a tenant under respondent no.1 and as such if this contention believes to be true, yet the appellant being a tenant has a right to get the electric connection in his name independently.
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. The Ld. District Forum has come to a finding that there is no evidence that respondent no.1 raised any objection to respondent no.2 in installation of electricity in the tenanted premises of the Appellant. However, the Ld. District Forum has accepted the appellant/complainant was a tenant under respondent no.1/OP No.1.
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 a Forum or a Court of Law.
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 of respondent no.1 or tenancy right of the appellant will be adjudicated by a competent Civil Court but since statute is no evil, all the authorities must adhere to the legislative command.
For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is allowed on contest but without any order as to costs.
The impugned judgement/final order is hereby set aside.
Consequently, the CC/264/2016 is, thus, allowed.
The OP no 2 is directed to install new electric meter in the tenanted portion of the Complainant at Premises No. 63A, Tollyguange Road, P.S.- Charu Market, Kolkata - 700033 and if so required, with the assistance of officer-in-charge of Charu Market P.S. within 15 days from the date of communication of the order.
The OP no.1 is directed not to obstruct or disturb the men of OP no. 2 (CESC Ltd.) at the time of installation of new electric meter at the tenanted premises of the Complainant.
The Registrar of this Commission is directed to send a copy of this order to the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, Unit-III for information. [HON'BLE MR. SAMARESH PRASAD CHOWDHURY] PRESIDING MEMBER