BIRENDRA NATH KOYAL vs W.B.S.E.B.

THIS is an appeal by the complainant against the order of the Forum issuing certain directions to him and the opposite party No. 1 for resolution of the dispute. The complainant claims to be the sole and absolute owner of one decimal of Bastu land along with a shop room standing thereon by virtue of oral mutual partition with his two other brothers. He runs a grocery in the said shop room for a pretty long time. He applied for separate electric connection to his shop to O.P. No. 1 in June, 1997 and deposited the requisite amount. The opposite party did not grant separate installation to his shop room but ultimately expressed its inability to instal separate electric connection to the said room on the ground that the other co-sharers have raised objection. It has been further stated that a huge sum of Rs. 94,807.34 is lying as outstanding due against service connection in respect of the same plot belonging to one Mohit Kumar Kayal. It has been stated that the electric charges remained unpaid for the period from 2/1989 to 3/1997 and unless the proportionate amount is paid no separate connection could be given. The complainant however says that his father Sailendra Nath Kayal, since deceased had purchased the property and the shop was exclusively owned by his father for more than fifty years and on his death he has got it firstly by virtue of inheritance and secondly by mutual partition with his brothers. He claims that late Mohit Kumar Kayal was living in a separate premises with his family and he was enjoying electricity. But the complainant and his father did not enjoy any electricity from the service connection of Mohit Kumar Kayal. The separate service connection was not granted by the West Bengal State Electricity Board firstly on the ground that a huge sum of Rs. 94,807.34 is lying as outstanding dues against the service connection belonging to Mohit Kumar Kayal, since deceased. According to the opposite party Smt. Maya Rani Kayal and Sri Tutul Kayal have raised objection against granting of separate electric connection to the premises of the complainant. The said co-sharers have not been impleaded in this proceeding nor any paper has been filed by the opposite party that those persons have really raised objection against separate connection. The complainant claims that his father Sailendra Nath Kayal got the property by purchase and after his death the complainant got it by inheritance and by mutual partition with his brothers. It has been claimed that his father had been running the grocery for the last fifty years. The said grocery is a flourishing one. The complainant claims that on the death of his father he is alone running the said grocery. We have noticed earlier that the heirs of Mohit Kayal have not been made a party to this proceeding. The learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the complainant has been enjoying electricity in the premises standing in the name of Mohit Kumar Kayal since the time of his father and as such he is also liable to make payment of at least a proportionate share of the outstanding bill to get separate electric connection to the grocery.

HAVING considered the facts and circumstances of the case we notice that the dispute cannot be resolved by a Consumer Court. The dispute involved in this case is purely a civil dispute requiring adjudication by a Civil Court. So we think that the complainant should be relegated to the Civil Court to seek relief. In that view of the matter we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment with the observation that the complainant may approach the Civil Court for redress, if so advised. Appeal allowed.