State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

West Bengal

BHABANI BHAVAN (GROUND FLOOR)

31, BELVEDERE ROAD, ALIPORE

KOLKATA – 700 027



S.C. CASE NO. : FA/09/48



DATE OF FILING : 30.01.2009 DATE OF FINAL ORDER: 30.04.2009


APPELLANTS



1. Smt. Santi Lata Mondal

W/o Late Pijush Kanti Mondal

2. Sri Prasun Mondal

S/o Late Pijush Kanti Mondal



Both residing at Tentulberia, Garia,

P.S. Sonarpur, Dist. 24 Parganas (South)

Kolkata-700 084.



RESPONDENTS



1. Pradip Kanti Mondal

S/o Late Pijush Kanti Mondal

Vill. Tentulberia, P.S. Sonarpur,

P.O. Garia, Dist. South 24 Parganas.

2. Station Manager

Boalia Gr. Electric Supply

WBSEDCL, Boalia,

Dist. 24 Parganas (South)

Kolkata-700 084.

3. The Chairman

WBSEDCL, Salt Lake City

Kolkata-700 091.



BEFORE : MEMBER : MR. P.K.CHATTOPADHYAY

MEMBER : MR. S.COARI



FOR THE PETITIONER / APPELLANT : Mr. P.Basu, Ld. Advocate

FOR THE RESPONDENT / O.P.S.: Mr. S.Mondal, Ld. Advocate (Res.1)

Mr. S.Nayak, Ld. Advocate(Res.2&3)





: O R D E R :


MR. S.COARI, LD. MEMBER

The present Appeal has been directed against the judgement and order dt. 13.1.09 passed by the Ld. South 24 Parganas District Consumer Forum in C.C. no. 102 of 2008 wherein the Ld. District Forum allowed the petition of complaint in part with cost ex parte against OP Nos. 1 & 2, i.e. Electric Company, and on contest against OP Nos. 3 & 4 on the direction upon the OP Nos. 1 & 2 to install a new electric meter in the name of the complainant in the house where he resides.

The case of the complainant before the Ld. District Forum, in brief, was that upon application for new connection of electric line at his residence, there were objections at the instance of the OP Nos. 3 & 4, who happens 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 Nos. 1 & 2 having not given the electric connection within reasonable time the complainant filed the petition of complaint for redressal.

The OP Nos. 3 & 4 contested the case by filing written objection contending inter alia that the status of the complainant was nothing but that of a licensee under the OP No. 3. The complainant was enjoying electricity facilities without contributing or paying any amount of electricity consumption at all. At the time of hearing before the Ld. District Forum a point was raised on behalf of the OP Nos. 3 & 4 to the effect that a civil dispute is pending between the parties in which a status quo order has been passed in respect of the property matters including the dwelling house where the parties reside. But the Ld. District Forum did not consider the same as the issue was quite different before the Ld. Civil Court than that of what was before the Ld. District Forum and accordingly, allowed the petition of complaint 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 case in the manner as discussed above.
DECISION WITH REASONS

At the time of hearing it has been submitted on behalf of the Appellants that the Ld. District Forum did not appreciate the actual state of affairs and legal implications involved after passing of the restraint order by a court of civil jurisdiction. According to the Ld. Advocate, it was not proper on the part of the Ld. District Forum to allow the petition of complaint thereby ignoring the order of restraint passed by the Civil Court restraining the parties including the complainant/Respondent. While concluding his submissions it is submitted by the Ld. Advocate before us that when there was a restraint order at the instance of a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction where the parties have submitted their pleadings, etc., the impugned judgement has got no legal force and the same is liable to be set aside.

We have duly considered the submissions put forward on behalf of the Appellants and have gone through the materials on record including the pleadings of the parties and also the impugned judgement and find that in this case it is an admitted position that the Appellants and the Respondent/Complainant are near relations, i.e. mother and son, who reside in a common building, and there are some bonafide disputes over property matters among themselves and there is an existence of restraint order passed by a competent Civil Court. But in our opinion, such restraint order has got no bearing in the prayer of the complainant/Respondent for having separate electric connection from Electric Company. In this connection, we find that the Ld. District Forum has adopted the right procedure in disposing of the petition of complaint and in the process the Ld. District Forum has appreciated the respective parties’ cases from all 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. Considering the present matter in the light of above observation we find no merit in the present Appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.

Hence, it is ORDERED that the Appeal stands dismissed on contest without cost. The order of the Ld. District Forum is affirmed.



MEMBER MEMBER