State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The District Engineer vs Sri Santi Ranjan Das on 18 December, 2012
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/371/12 and FA/376/12 (Arising out of Case No. CC/181/2010 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South 24 Parganas) DATE OF FILING : 05.07.12 DATE OF ORDER: 18.12.2012 APPELLANT : 1. The District Engineer, CESC Limited, West Suburban District, Office at South-West Regional Office, P-18, Taratala Road, P.S.- Taratala, Kolkata- 700 088. RESPONDENTS : 1. Sri Santi Ranjan Das, S/O Late Satish Chandra Das, Residing at A6-40/559, Uludanga ( Bata Nagar), P.S.- Mahesshtala, Kolkata- 700140, District- South 24 Parganas. 2. Sri Asish Kumar Ghosh, Residing of Uludanga, P.O- Bata Nagar, P.S.- Maheshtala, Kolkata- 700 140, District- South 24 Parganas. FOR THE APPELLANT : Sri Srijan Nayak, Ld. Advocate. FOR THE RESPONDENTS : Sri Barun Prasad, Ld. Advocate. Sri Amit Kumar Saha, Ld. Advocate. AND S.C. CASE NO- FA/376/12 (Arising out of Case No. CC/181/2010 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South 24 Parganas) DATE OF FILING : 06.07.12 DATE OF ORDER: 18.12.2012 APPELLANT : 1. Sri Asish Kumar Ghosh, S/O . Late Gour Hari Ghosh of Uludanga, P.O. Batanagar, P.S. Maheshtala, Kolata- 146 Dist- South 24 Parganas. RESPONDENTS : 1. Sri Santi Ranjan Das, S/O Late Satish Chandra Das, Of A6-40/559, Uludanga (Bata Nagar) P.S. Maheshtala, Kolkata- 140, Dist- South 24 Parganas. 2. The District Engineer, CESC Ltd., South West Regional Office, P/18, Taratala Road,P.S. Taratala, Kolkata- 88. FOR THE APPELLANT : Sri Prasanta Banerjee, Ld. Advocate. FOR THE RESPONDENTS : Sri Barun Prasad, Ld. Advocate. Sri Srijan Nayak, Ld. Advocate. BEFORE HONBLE MEMBER : Sri Debasis Bhattacharya. HONBLE MEMBER : Sri Jagannath Bag. Debasis Bhattacharya, Member.
Both the appeals being out of the same judgment being dated 25.06.12 in Case No. 181/10 as passed by the Ld. District Forum, South 24 Parganas, they are taken up for consideration by this common judgment.
It is the case of the Complainant in his petition of complaint that he is owner of the schedule property by way of purchase from the erstwhile owners, namely, Shri Bijoy Krishna Paul and others by registered deed of conveyance dated 07.05.1956 and by raising residential house was living peacefully, and in between his house and of Shri Ashish Kumar Ghosh (Appellant in FA 376/12), there is a 6 feet wide common passage running south to north and disputes and differences cropped up with the passage of time in the matter of common users of the said common passage, and Title Suit No. 45/2006 was instituted by the father of said Ashish Kr Ghosh before the 3rd Court of the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Alipore and the same was dismissed vide order dated 12.03.09 and presently the counterclaim of the Complainant and others is pending. In that suit, the Complainant filed one petition on 22.04.03 praying for permission for taking electric connection in his house which was disposed of by the said Ld. Court observing that the Complainant was always entitled to separate electric connection and no permission was necessary from the said Ld. Court, but since the Complaint had not formally applied to the CESC for separate electric connection, his said petition was premature. After dismissal of the suit against him, the Complainant applied on 16.04.10 for separate electric connection and meter to the CESC Ltd, represented by the O.P. No. 1 and submitted the initial deposit of Rs.500/- in respect thereof on the even date and on the same date, the O.P. No. 1 by a letter informed the Complainant that an official inspection would be held on 21.04.10 between 9 a.m and 1 p.m which was done. Thereafter, the O.P. No.1 remained absolutely silent for which the Complainant had to travel to its office at his ripe age of about 81 years to seek further information of the proceedings when he was informed that said Ashis Kumar Ghosh through his Ld. Advocate had submitted an objection in the matter, a copy of which was forwarded by the O.P. No.1 by a letter dated 01.6.10 which was a frivolous objection and the O.P. No.1 had stayed its hands in the matter of processing and proceeding with the application of the Complainant dated 16.04.10 for a separate electric connection. Accordingly, the Complaint case.
By the impugned judgment, the Ld. District Forum has decided the case in favour of the Complainant ex parte with a cost of Rs.5,000/- with direction to the O.P. No. 1 to strictly provide new connection and meter as applied by the Complainant within seven days from the date of the order and also directed the O.P. No.1 to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment, which shall be paid within one month from the date of the order, failing which the total amounts shall carry interest @ 10 % p.a from the date of the order till realization. Being aggrieved by the said order, the O.P. No. 1 has preferred F.A. No. 371/12 and Shri Ashis Kumar Ghosh being an aggrieved person has preferred F.A. No. 376/12.
It is to be considered if the impugned judgment and order suffers from any kind of irregularity and also illegality so as to interfere in it, or not.
Decision with reasons In the matter, there is admittedly an inspection carried out by the CESC Ltd. on 21.04.10 in response to the Complainants application dated 16.04.10. But, thereafter on receipt of a lawyers notice dated 21.05.10 on behalf of his client Shri Ashis Kumar Ghosh urging the CESC Ltd. not to install electric line to the Complainant for illegally trying to take connection through his clients land which will cause serious inconvenience to his client and that the properly is still not divided between them and one civil suit being Title Suit No. 45/2006 and Misc Case No. 619/09 before the Court of Additional Munsif at Alipore is pending and the matter is sub judice. Thereafter, the CESC Ltd. wrote to the Complainant by a letter dated 01.06.10 enclosing a photocopy of the letter received from the advocate of Shri Ashis Kumar Ghosh for his elucidation and remarks. There is no document to show that the Complainant replied to such a communication of the CESC Ltd. It is, however, found that thereafter he filed the complaint case on 26.07.10 before the Ld. District Forum, South 24 Parganas. As such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the CESC Ltd, for which at least no litigation cost and compensation are entitled to the Complainant from the CESC Ltd, against which the Ld. Advocate for the CESC Ltd has harped very much. There is found to be no prohibitory order of the Civil Court against installation of electric connection and meter to the schedule property of the Complainant/Respondent No.1. As such, the Complainant/Respondent No. 1 is eligible to get separate and new electric connection in the schedule property from the CESC Ltd, even with the help of police, if required by the CESC Ltd. Accordingly, the appeal by the CESC Ltd being FA/371/12 is fit to be allowed in part with certain modifications of the ordering portion of the impugned judgment and the appeal of Shri Ashish Kumar Ghosh being FA/376/12 fails.
Hence, Ordered that FA No. 371/12 is allowed in part on contest with certain modifications as below. The CESC Ltd, i.e., O.P No.1 is directed to provide new connection and meter to the Complainant within one month from the date of this order, even by taking recourse of police help, if necessary.
that FA No. 376/12 is dismissed on contest without cost.
The original judgment be kept in FA/371/12 and a xerox copy of the same be kept in FA/376/12.
Jagannath Bag.
Debasis Bhattacharya (Member) (Member)