Per Shri Pradeep G Kadu, Hon’ble President

          1) This is a consumer complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The briefly stated facts of the case contentions of the Complainant are as follows:

 a) Shri Mohamed Illyas Ahmad Khan, Complainant abovenamed residing at 195/59, Garodia Compound, 90 FT Road, Opp. Devang Bldg, Nawaz Auto Garage, Ghatkopar (East) Mumbai 400 075, had applied for grant of service of electricity supply to the Opposite Party M/s Adani Electricity being pin the business of electricity supply and distribution of electricity to consumers in Mumbai.

b) The Complainant submits that he had supplied all the required documents for grant of electricity connection.  The Complainant also offered to pay requisite charges to the company for availing the said services.  However, the company rejected his application with following stated reasons;

i) Structure not permanent;

ii) Construction of Masonary structure for installation of meter;

iii) Court case pending in City Civil Court against BMC and owner of the plot Mr Mahesh Garodia;

iv) There are overhead transmission line passing above the said  temporary structure.

2) As the Complainant not satisfied with the reply, he filed this complaint before this Commission alleging deficiency in service by the Opposite Party with request to grant of electricity within one month and compensation for physical and mental agony as well as legal expenses.

Contentions of the Opposite Party

3) The Opposite Party at the outset states that the present complaint filed by the complaint is wholly misconceived, baseless and unsustainable under the law and is therefore liable to be dismissed.

4) The Opposite Party further states that the Complainant has failed to prove his case and in fact, there is no case of failure in providing service / deficiency in service by the Opposite Party.  The Opposite Party further states that the present complaint is baseless and a flagrant abuse of process of law to harass and grab relief from the Opposite Party.

5) The Opposite party mainly pointed out the non-compliance of statutory requirements for the grant of electricity connection in the said case.  In spite of suo-motu and proactive follow-up by the Opposite Party, the Complainant failed to comply the necessary conditions.

Observations of the facts in the case

6) The Complainant had applied for residential connection on 14/04/2018, vide BO No.90659998, however, upon inspection by the Opposite Party, it was observed that the structure was not available at the site pursuant to which the Complainant was issued call letter to discuss the same.

7) Subsequently, on 05/07/2018, the Complainant applied for temporary electricity supply, subsequent to which the site inspection was carried out by the Opposite Party on 10/07/2018.  During the inspection, it was observed that the structure as mentioned in the application was not at the site, instead there was an open plot of land of one Mr.Mahesh Garodia of Garodia Group of Companies, claiming to be the owner of the open plot of land.

8) Based on the inspection and enquiry carried out by the Opposite Party, an estimate dated 19/07/2018, for the amount of Rs.77,583/- was raised for laying cable passing through the land after excavation from the nearest source up to the point of supply.  This estimate for temporary connection was with the understanding that the Complainant would obtain necessary permission/ NOC/ Way Leave from the land owner.  However, the application of the Complainant could not be further processed owing to failure of the Complainant to obtain NOC from the owner of the land.

9) Since, the Complainant had failed to fulfil the requirement of obtaining permission from the land owner, no payments were accepted by the Opposite Party on account of estimate for laying cables.

10) After referring matter to the Internal Grievance Redressal Cell and understanding the facts, the Complainant had made a fresh application for permanent electricity supply for which, revised estimate was issued by the Opposite Party as per the guidelines.

11) The Opposite Party vide its letters dated 16/04/2019 and 24/04/2019 addressed to the Complainant, clarified its position that the revised estimate for new connection was subject to NOC from the land owner.

12)  The Opposite Party submits that when the Complainant had failed to obtain necessary permission from the land owner, the Opposite Party with the object of providing electricity connection to the Complainant, suo-motu contacted Garodia Group vide its email dated 19/01/2019, informing about receipt of application for new connection from the Complainant.  In response to the above email, the Opposite Party received a reply from Garodia Group vide their email dated 21/01/2019, informing that the plot is reserved for RG and Writ Petition No.257 of 2003 is pending before Hon'ble Bombay High Court.  Subsequently, the Opposite Party also written a letter dated 11/04/2019 to Shri Mahesh Garodia, seeking permission for land excavation for laying cable underground on the plot of the land from the nearest source up to the point of supply. To this a negative reply dated 15/04/2019 was received from Mr.Garodia owing court case in this matter.

13) The Opposite Party vide its letter dated 23/09/2019, requested the Complainant to submit the Applicant's Agreement & undertakings for new connection application in compliance with directions under the Electricity Supply Code Regulations, 2005, issued by Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission under the Electricity Act, 2003.  The Opposite Party has so far not received any response to the same.

14) Based on above discussions and conclusions, the following points did arise for our determination on which we record findings with the reasons given below:-

Conclusions and Findings

14) From the above facts, it is abundantly clear that the Opposite Party has made every effort to provide connection to the Complainant.  Further, the Opposite Party has followed due process of law as per the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003.  However, the Complainant has failed to comply with the basic requirement for providing connection by the Opposite Party.  Therefore, the allegations made by the Complainant for deficiency in service and demand for compensation is unjustified and hence, could not be accepted.

15) In the light of above discussion and evidence produced on record by the parties herein, it is clear that the deficiency in service cannot be attributed towards the Opposite Party i.e, the M/s Adani Electricity Mumbai Ltd., since, no case of deficiency of service is made out against the Opposite Party-electricity supply company.  Thus, the Complainant is not entitled to any of the relief sought.  In the result, we record our finding on Point No.1 in negative and pass the following order.

Order

1. Consumer Complaint No.CC/85/2019 stands dismissed.

2. Parties to bear their own costs.

3. Copies of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs.