SMT. SYEDA SHAHNUR ALI, MEMBER(L)
The case of the complainant, in brief, is that the complainant met with the OP No1 regarding electric connection and he applied for electric connection in his dwelling house on plot no. 1086 of mouza Purusottampur which he had been possessing by separate demarcation without any disturbance. The petitioner applied for electric connection being application No. 2002037052. The OP no 1 issued quotation on 16.11.15 to the petitioner for new electric connection. As per quotation dated 16.11.15 the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 553/- and Rs. 400/- for service connection on 24.11.15 and complainant petitioner received two money receipts being No. 127701570160 and 130001571416 respectively. In spite of deposit of security money and service connection at the said dwelling house the petitioner did not get the electric connection and finally he send a letter to the OP no.1 on 25.05.16 which was duly received by the OP no.1 on 27.05.16.Thereafter also complainant sent letter for electric connection to the OP no.1 on 17.06.16 which was received by the OP no.1 on20.06.16. On 22.06.16 complainant stated that he personally met with the officials of the OP no.1 and requested them for electric connection at the same dwelling house but OP NO.1 refused to take any steps for electric connection. Hence, this case.
Thereafter one Goutam Kumar Maity filed an application for adding him as a party in the instant case which was allowed on 28.09.16 and he was added as OP No.3 in the instant case.
The OP-3 has filed WV and WNA. OP No.1 also filed WNA and WV.
In paragraph 15 of the written version of the OP no.1 it is stated that the claimant is the only power of attorney holder to look after the premises and nothing more. The OP no.1 also stated that due to objection raised by the OP no.3 Goutam Kumar Maity the contractor M/S. Sriram Construction failed to effect service connection due to objection raised by said Goutam kumar Maity. OP No.1 also stated that there is an injunction order passed by the Executive Magistrate, Tamluk Purba Medinipur dated 06.01.16 in case No. 6/2016 u/sec 144 of the Cr PC. The OP no.1 by a letter dated 02.02.16 intimated the complainant for “ Way leave” and Budhyadeb Samanta by a letter dated 27.05.16 appealed to the OP no.1 to effect connection as there is no “way leave’ left. The OP No.1 also stated that on 10.06.16 the contractor Agency M/S Sibam Construction attended the premises of Buddhadeb Samanta for drawing the service connection on 10.06.16 but faced strong objection from Goutam Kumar Maity. It is revealed that Sri Samanta suppressed certain facts and submitted an objection letter dated 18.06.16 with the Court’s order.
OP No. 3 stated in his objection that there is a Civil Suit pending before the 1st court of Civil Judge (Sr. Divn), Tamluk being T S No. 12/2016 and in that suit there is an order of ad interim temporary injunction granted by that ld. Court in respect of plot no. 1086 till disposal of the partition suit. OP No.3 also stated that the complainant herein has no right, title and interest over the RS plot no. 971 and LR Plot no. 1086 of mouza Purusottampur and complainant is praying for electric connection for the interest of one Sanjay Kumar Maity and Jogmaya Maity.
We have gone through all the documents filed by the complainant/petitioner as well as the OPs.
Now the points for discussion is whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for.
Decision with reasons
We find that the complainant has filed a power of attorney issued in the name of Bhdduadeb Samantha by one Sanjay Kumar Maity and Jogmaya Maity. The complainant also filed one sketch map being field note filed in TS No. 12/16 wherefrom it is evident that HS is the house / structure made of tin and on west of said room there is a brick wall and a morum pathway.
A copy of the plaint filed by added OP No.3 shows that the OPs 1 and 2 have not been made party in the T S No.12/16. AS such the status quo order passed by the ld court of Civil Judge (Sr Div), Tamluk Purba Medinipur does not in any way affect the OP Nos. 1 and 2.
Electricity being an essential necessity one cannot be barred from taking the benefit of the same from the Licensee. As such as per Section 43 (2) of the Electricity Act 2003, ’Every distribution licensee shall on an application by the owner or occupier of any premises give supply of electricity to such premises within one month after receipt of the application for requiring such supply. Moreover the OPs1 and 2 had received charges on 24.11.15 and as sub-section 2 of Sec. 43 it shall be the duty of every distribution licensee to provide, if required electric plant or electric line for giving electric supply to the premises specified in Sub-section 1. Section 43 envisages “if a distribution licensee fails to supply electricity within a period specified in Sub-sec. 1 he shall be liable to pay penalty which may extend to Rs. 1000/- for each day of default. That being the statutory provision we do not find why the OPs 1 and 2 withheld the distribution of electric supply to the occupier of the premises at mouza Purusottampur JL No. 331, LR Khatian No. 1538 and 1539 LR Plot No. 1386 under PS Panskura district Purba Medinipur till 04.07.16.
It is also evident from Annexure B that clearance has also been herein given to affect service connection to the application No. 2002037052 in the name of Buddhyadeb Samanta on 28.09.15. As such we find that there is gross negligence which tantamount to deficiency of service on the part of the OPs No. 1 and 2 and they are at fault in not providing new service connection in spite of necessary orders being passed by the appropriate authority (Annexure B).
Hence, it is,
O R D E R E R
That the complaint case being No 96 of 2016 be and the same is allowed on contest against the OPs. OP No 1 and 2 are directed to effect service connection to the address provided by the complainant herein for new electric connection i.e at village Purusottampur under Gourangapur CCC if necessary with the help of police personnel from the local PS within 30 days from issuance of this order and the OP No.3 is directed not to interfere with the said of electrification within the demarcated portion occupied by the complainant herein.
OP no. 1 and 2 are further directed to pay compensation of Rs. 5000/- each to the complainant towards his harassment and delay in enjoyment of the electricity in his premises together with litigation cost of Rs. 1500/- @ Rs. 750/- by each of the OPs , failing which the OPs shall have to pay Rs. 150/- per diem after expiry of the stipulated period of 30 (thirty) days till effect of the service connection by the OPs No. 1 and 2, as punitive charge which will be payable to the Consumer Welfare Fund. The complainant shall have the liberty to put this order into execution after expiry of 30 days here from.
Let the copy of the judgment be supplied to all the parties free of cost.
