LALITA PRADHAN vs PURNA CHANDRA PATTNAIK

THIS is an appeal by against the direction of the District Forum finding deficiency in service.

APPELLANT No. 1 is owner of a house at Basanti Colony in Rourkela. Ground floor of the house was let out to the United Commercial Bank of which complainant is the Manager who was staying in the premises let out. House rent was fixed at Rs. 850.00 per month exclusive electricity and water charges as per letter dt. 1/12/1988. APPELLANTs were residing on the first floor of the house. Tenancy was to expire at the end of December, 1991. On 5/7/1991, appellant No. 1 claimed house rent @ Rs. 1,000.00 per month and communicated their desire to get the house vacated in the event of failing to pay the rent at the enhanced rate. On 14/7/1991, the land lady and her husband (appellant Nos. 1 & 2 respectively) disconnected the electric supply and stopped the water supply to the rented apartment in spite of repeated requests not to do so. Thus, inconvenience was caused to the complainant and his family members. Finding no way out, complainant was compelled to vacate the house on 31/7/1991 and filed complaint on 28/9/1991 claiming compensation on account of deficiency in service. Tenant of a house is a consumer to whom service of accommodation is provided by the land lord on receipt of rent. There would be deficiency in service in case the benefits given out to be provided for use of the house as agreed upon, are not maintained or provided. A person enjoying accommodation with permission of person hiring the house is a beneficiary and is thus, a consumer having right to ventilate his/her grievance through the redressal agency alleging deficiency in service.

In this case, there is no clear material to appreciate how a person residing in the first floor can disconnect electricity and water supply of the ground floor. Question of deficiency in service is to be gone into on the basis of that finding. District Forum ought to have sent a commission at the cost of the complainant to find out the location of the supply points and report if such disconnection Opposite Parties is possible. Thereafter, the District Forum could have considered whether actually appellants have disconnected water supply and electricity, whether there was agreement for supply of the same and in case of disconnection, how appellant No. 2, husband is liable under the Act. Nature of suffering was also required to be gone into because it is necessary to find out whether intentional disconnection of water supply and electricity would be negligence of the appellants. On being satisfied that requirements of Section 14(1)(d) are fully met, a direction could have been given. Complainant in the circumstances, require fresh consideration.

IN result, appeal is allowed, direction of the District Forum is set aside and the complaint is remitted back to the District Forum for fresh consideration as indicated above. Appeal allowed.