DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,HOOGHLY
C.C.CASE NO.48 OF 2008
Sri Gopal Chandra Pal
Village Chandanpur,
P.O.Debanandapur,
P.S.Chinsurah,
Dist.Hooghly. …. Petitioner
-Vs-
1. The Divisional Manager,
Chandernagore (D) Division
W.B.S.E.D.C.L.
Chandernagore,
Hooghly.
2. The Station Manager,
WBSEDCL
Bandel,
P.S.Chinsurah,
Dist.Hooghly.
3. Sri Krishna Chandra Pal,
Village-Chandanpur,
P.O. Debanandapur,
P.S.Chinsurah,
Dist.Hooghly. … Opp. Parties
Date of delivery of Judgement – 8.12.2009
Present : D.K.Basu … President
R.Roychowdhury Malakar …. Member
The fact of the case of the complainant in a nutshell is as follows :
The complainant Gopal Chandra Pal has filed this case against Op no.1 the Divisional Manager, Chandernagore (D) Division, WBSEDCL, Op no.2 Station Manager, WBSEDCL, Bandel and Op no.3 Krishna Pada Pal, Chandanpur, P.O. Debanandapur, Dist Hooghly alleging that the schedule property belonged to the father late Ratneswar Chandra of the complainant and the Op no.3. After his demise the complainant along with her three other brothers and two daughters and mother became the owner of the said property. The brother Joydeb Pal and Sudeb Pal have been residing in their own property raising their own dwelling houses elsewhere. Smt.Chapala Rani Pal, mother , Sri Joydeb Pal, brother and Smt.Pratima Rani Mitra the sister of the complainant gifted their shares in favour of Krishna Pada Pal i.e. Op no.3 . Similarly, the share of Smt.Gita Rani Rout has been gifted to the complainant and these two brothers namely Gopal Chandra Pal (complainant) and Krishna Pada Pal (Op) have been residing in the same dwelling house with peaceful possession of their property. The existing electric meter was in the name of Chapala Rani Pal is under the possession of Op no.3. Recently, the complainant for getting separate electric connection in his favour applied to the OP no.2 in a prescribed form and deposited a sum of Rs.210/- in the office of Bandel Group Electric Supply. The Op no.3 being an employee of WBSEDCL in connivance with Op no.2 issued a letter by Op no.2 to the complainant vide letter no.1705 dated 31.1.2008 asking him to show the “way leave” for new service connection and the Op no.2 has not been rendered any electric connection at his premises. The electric connection can be drawn to the complainant’s house through street pole. By filing the instant case he has prayed for direction upon Op no.2 to effect new electric service connection to the portion of the schedule property, a compensation of Rs.5000/- for mental agony and harassment, litigation cost and other relieves.
The Opno.2 by filing a written version has contested this case contending inter alia that the complainant deposited Rs.10/- being the application fees and also Rs.200/- on 24.12.2007 for getting electric connection . This Op after receiving the requisite fee took venture to provide electricity in the premises of the petitioner but due to strong objection of the Op no.3 who happens to be own brother and due to passing an order of maintaining status quo by the learned Executive Magistrate, Sadar in M.P.case no.325 of 2008 the connection could not be given. He has no willful negligence .
The Op no.3 has also contested this case by filing a written version stating that after demise of their father Ratneswar Pal they viz. Chapala Rani Pal, Joydeb Pal, Pratima Rani Pal , cosharers gifted their respective shares to him. The mother with electric facility used to reside in a room and there is no other room. As the room of the mother was on dilapidated condition he , (op no.3) being gifted the same reconstructed that room. The complainant used to reside in different area and he had/has no room in that premises. He has also denied the complainant’s separate entity , to draw electricity from the street pole .
The Op no.1 has not contested this case inspite of receipt of the notice. Hence, order will be passed against him exparte.
In view of the above facts the following points can be taken into account for proper adjudication.
1) Whether the Op no.2 has committed any deficiency in service by
non giving the electric connection to the complainant ?
2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for ?
FINDINGS WITH REASONS:
Both the points are taken together for the sake of convenience and also for the purpose of avoiding needless repetitions.
The parties have filed their respective evidence in their support.
The learned lawyer of the complainant has argued that according to the deed he is the owner of the schedule property. The LR porcha also stands in his name. It is also admitted fact that the complainant deposited Rs.10/- and Rs.200/- for getting electric connection in his premises. It is the contention of Op no.2 that he is ready to give electric connection . There is a common passage whereon the Op no.3 , the brother of the complainant has raised objection to draw the electric line. Hence, the Op no.2 is restrained from drawing the electric line. He has further argued in reference of the ruling III (2005) CPJ 663 (WB) and I (2005) CPJ 443 (WB) that the OP no.2 has no hindrance to give electric line in the premises of the complainant pursuant to the above two rulings.
The Learned lawyer of the Op no.2 has candidly submitted that they are ready to give electric connection but due to existence of the restraining order of the Executive Magistrate he is debarred from giving the electric line. He has further argued that the property has not been partitioned and the complainant has not his separate entity . There is a common passage . If any one raises any objection to draw electric line over the common passage, then they are reluctant to give electric connection . They have no deficiency in service or willful negligence.
The learned lawyer of the Op no.3 has argued that the complainant has no possession over the said property. If electric connection is given , then his possession will be encroached . The porcha does not prove that he has possession.
Considering the submission of the learned lawyer we can safely say that the complainant deposited Rs.10/- and Rs.200/.- for getting electric connection in his name. From the above cited case it is also crystal clear that the Op no.2 went to give electric connection to the complainant and due to obstruction by the Op no.3 and restraining order , the Op no.2 has failed to render electric connection to the house of the complainant. It is not the case of the op no.2 that during execution of work order they did not find any premises of the complainant. The Op no.2’s case is that due to objection raised by Op no.3 and restraining order of the court he is debarred to give electric connection
In this context the Ruling cited by the learned lawyer of the complainant II(2009) CPJ, 427, W.B.State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata, is befitting in this case whereon it has been stated in paragraph 2 “ the case of the complainant before the learned District Forum, in brief, was that upon application for new connection of electricity line at his residence, there were objections at the instant of the Op no.3 and 4, who happen to be the near relations of the complainant, i.e. mother and brother. The complainant paid all the requisite fees etc. for the new connection . The Op no.1 and 2 having not giving the electric connection within reasonable time the complainant filed the petition of compliant for Redressal”. In paragraph 6 at page 428 it has stated “…………………..and the respondent/complainant are near relations, i.e. mother and son who reside in a common building and there are some bona fide disputes over the property matters among themselves and there is an existence of restrained order passed by a competent Civil court. But in our opinion, such restrained order has got no bearing in the prayer of the complainant /respondent for having separate electric connection from Electricity company. In this connection, we find that the learned District Forum has adopted the right procedure in disposing of the petition of the complaint and in the process the learned District Forum has appreciated the respective parties cases from possible angles and has actually arrived at a just and proper decision which , in our opinion , should not be interfered with in the present Appeal. ……………….”
The evidence of the parties in the record does not reflect any deviation from their respective case. Considering the evidence on record and the parties case we are of opinion that the above cited rulings is in the instant case befitting.
Thus the complaint has succeeded in establishing the case.
The Op no.2 by non rendering the electric connection to the complainant has obviously committed deficiency in service.
Considering the bonafideness of the Op no. 2 as to non supplying of electric line to the complainant due to objection of Op no.3 and a restraining order , we are not imposing any penalty upon him and thus we are not passing any compensation order in favour of the complainant.
Hence ordered
That the case is allowed on contest against the Op no.2 and 3 and exparte against the Op no.1 without any cost.
The Op no.2 is hereby directed to give electric connection to the complainant over the common passage within 30 days from the date of the compliance of the all formalities by the complainant as to giving electric connection at his premises.
The complainant is directed to comply all the formalities for obtaining the electric connection from the Op no.2 within 20 days from the date of this order.
We pass no order as to compensation in favour of the complainant.
Hand over a copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
The case is disposed of beyond the statutory period.
Dictated and corrected by me
President Member