State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sukantilata Kar vs M/S. Cesc Ltd. on 27 April, 2015
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 First Appeal No. FA/319/2014 (Arisen out of Order Dated 25/02/2014 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/258/2013 of District Kolkata-II) 1. Sukantilata Kar 301/A, Vivekananda Road, Kolkata - 700 006. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. M/s. CESC Ltd. CESC House, Kolkata-1, P.S. Hare Street. 2. District Engineer, M/s CESC Ltd. North Regional Office, 226, A & B, A.P.C. Road, Kolkata - 700 004. 3. Sri Bhabani Roy 301/A, Vivekananda Road, Kolkata - 6. 4. Smt. Sadhana Dey 301/A, Vivekananda Road, Kolkata - 700 006. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. DEBASIS BHATTACHARYA PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. JAGANNATH BAG MEMBER For the Appellant: Mr. Debesh Halder, Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. D. B. Chowdhury., Advocate ORDER
Date: 27-04-2015 Sri Debasis Bhattacharya This appeal is directed against the Order dated 25-02-2014 in C. C. No. 258/2013, passed by the Ld. District Forum, Kolkata, Unit-II, whereby the instant case has been dismissed on contest without any cost. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, the Complainant thereof has preferred this appeal.
Case of the Complainant, in a nutshell, is that he applied for a domestic electric meter before the OP No. 1 and in turn the CESC authority carried out inspection of the premises on 16-02-2005. However, subsequently on 26-02-2005, the OP No. 2 informed her that OP No. 3 raised objection against installation of meter. Thereafter, the OP No. 2, again vide its letter dated 10-11-2005 informed that a Title Suit no. 342/2005 has been filed by the OP No. 4 and the concerned Ld. Court restrained her from installing meter in the place where the meter of the said OP No. 4 is situated. However, later on the Ld. Civil Court, Sealdah dismissed the said Title Suit on 14-12-2011. The actual owner of the premises, i.e., Dr. Manas Kumar Das has no objection against such installation of new meter and the OP Nos. 4 and 5 have no locus standi in the matter. Hence, the instant case.
Case of the OP Nos. 1&2 is that the assertion of the Complainant in his petition of complaint that inspection was carried out on 16-02-2005 was misleading and purposive. The Complainant was advised vide letter dated 10-11-2005 that on 16-02-2005 and again on 22-10-2005, though their men visited the place of the Complainant, on both occasions, they did not get access to the existing meter board. The application made in the year 2005 by the Complainant has already been cancelled and closed inasmuch as proper inspection could not be carried out despite their repeated efforts. The Complainant did not make any communication with the OPs. As such, the application of the Complainant was cancelled after waiting for six months.
Case of the OP Nos. 3&4 is that the instant petition is time barred. The CESC Ltd. cannot provide electricity to the Appellant as she is paying a meagre rent of Rs. 25/- to the OP and that too, she tendered to the office of the Rent Controller, and also she cannot bear the burden of electricity charges so would be levied. The OP Nos. 3&4 have been duly authorized to look after the building and the premises and no unauthorized access to the meter board would be allowed. Moreover, there is no vacant place to install any new meter.
It is to be considered in this appeal whether or not the impugned order is sustainable from legal aspects against the exclusive facts and circumstances of the case.
Decision with reasons Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has submitted that vide its communiqué dated 10-11-2005, the Respondent No. 2 informed that Respondent No. 4 moved a Title Suit No. 342/2005 before the Ld. 2nd Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Sealdah and the said Ld. Judge passed an order on 28-10-2005 restraining her to install meter in the place where the meter of the said Respondent No. 4 was situated. Therefore, they expressed their inability to proceed with the matter unless such restraining order of the Ld. Court was revoked. The said Title Suit was dismissed on 14-12-2011 and she filed the instant case before the Ld. District Forum on 16-08-2013, i.e., well within the statutory period of limitation. However, out of a completely erroneous interpretation of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. District Forum dismissed the said case holding that the case was time barred. Therefore, the said order be set aside, else she would suffer irreparable loss and injury.
Ld. Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1&2 has submitted that on receipt of application for installation of meter, they deputed their personnel twice to carry out due inspection of the site. However, they did not get any access to the meter box where the Appellant intended to place the new meter. Moreover, a Title Suit was filed by the Respondent No. 4 and the concerned Ld. Court directed the Appellant not to place any new meter in the place where the meter of the said Respondent was situated. In such circumstances, they sent a letter on 10-11-2005 expressing their predicament to proceed further in this matter till the Ld. Court decided otherwise. As they did not hear anything from the side of the Appellant for long, and more so, while there was no legal embargo, all records in this regard were destroyed. So, if the Appellant is still desirous of getting a new meter, she would have to apply afresh after paying requisite fees thereof. They had no deficiency in service in this regard. So, the impugned order be upheld. He has referred to a decision of the Hon'ble National Commission, reported in 2013 (4) CPR 224 (NC).
Ld. Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 3&4 has submitted that the Ld. District Forum has rightly observed that the instant complaint case was barred by limitation since the cause of said case arose in the year 2005 when the Appellant applied for getting a new meter, but she filed the complaint case in the year 2013. Also, they have been duly authorized to look after the building and the premises and no unauthorized access to the meter board would be allowed. Because of paucity of space, there is no room to accommodate another new meter in the meter box. Lastly, while the CESC authority has closed and destroyed the file once for all due to sheer negligence on the part of the Appellant, the Ld. District Forum rightly observed that the Appellant has no alternative but to file a fresh application along with necessary NoC from the owner of the property. The impugned order be upheld for ends of justice.
Undisputedly, an application for installation of a new meter was made by the Appellant before the CESC authority together with NoC from the owner of the property in question in the year 2005. Also, undisputed is the fact that the Respondent No. 2, vide its letter dated 10-11-2005 expressed their inability to give her supply till the Ld. 2nd Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Sealdah revokes its order dated 28-10-2005, whereby the Appellant was restrained from installing meter in the place where the meter of the Respondent No. 4 was situated. It clearly goes to show that the Respondent Nos. 1&2 were fully alive to the situation as regards pendency of a suit before the Court concerned. So, they should have exercised due care and caution before destroying the file of a sub judice matter. Even if they were indeed in a tearing hurry to destroy the file, there was no harm apprising the Appellant about their decision beforehand particularly when it is common knowledge that a civil suit is a long drawn process. So, the Respondent Nos. 1&2 cannot escape their responsibility in this regard.
Fact of the matter remains that the Appellant applied for new meter before the Respondent No. 1 in the year 2005 and the said matter was kept in abeyance by the CESC authority vide its letter dated 10-11-2005 in view of the restraining order of the Ld. Civil Court which was finally dismissed on 14-12-2011 and the instant case was filed before the Ld. District Forum on 16-08-2013, i.e., well before the statutory period of limitation under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Because of the hasty decision of the CESC authority on a sub judice matter, a consumer cannot suffer. Above all, the Respondent Nos. 1&2 have not placed on record any cogent document to show that they officially closed the matter and due intimation to this effect was communicated to the Appellant. After receiving requisite money from a consumer, it is not expected of any responsible service provider to take unilateral decision behind the back of the former. The Ld. District Forum grossly erred in holding that the application of the Appellant was cancelled by the CESC authority on 10-11-2005 inasmuch as the Respondent Nos. 1&2 themselves admitted in their W.V., filed before the Ld. District Forum, that the application of the Appellant was cancelled after waiting for six months from the date of writing of the aforementioned letter. We are of view that the cause of action initially arose in the year 2005, when an application for installation of new meter was submitted by the Appellant before the Respondent No. 1 and thereafter, the same continued till the Title Suit was finally dismissed on 14-12-2011. The instant complaint case being filed on 16-08-2013, it was not time barred and very much alive and maintainable before the Ld. District Forum.
Although it is claimed by the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 that they have been duly authorized to look after the building and the premises, surprisingly they stopped of specifying who authorized them to do the same and moreover, no such authority letter/power of attorney from the actual owner has been placed on record to prove the bona fide of their claim. Also, insofar as the initial NoC given by the actual owner of the premises in favour of the Appellant has not yet been revoked, objection of the Respondent Nos. 3&4 in this regard cannot be entertained. Further, till an eviction decree is obtained by the owner/his authorized representative from a competent Court of Law, a tenant has every right to enjoy electricity for which installation of meter is imperative. Therefore, the alibi of space crunch as coined by the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 cannot stand in the way of Appellant getting a new meter.
In the result, the instant 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 Respondent Nos. 1&2 are directed to provide new service connection to the Appellant within 40 days from the date of this order and pay a litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the Appellant. In case, the Appellant encounter any resistance from the side of the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, they are free to seek police help to eradicate any potential threat to carry out the job, i.d., the Respondent Nos. 1&2 shall be jointly and severally liable to pay fine @ Rs. 50/- per diem from the date of this order till compliance of this order in its entirety. The impugned order is hereby set aside. [HON'BLE MR. DEBASIS BHATTACHARYA] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. JAGANNATH BAG] MEMBER