The case of the complainant in brief is that  the complainant is a consumer of the OP enjoying the electricity connection since long back by paying regular electricity bill. The said electricity connection in the house of the petitioner is in the name of Dr. Mrinal Kumar Baruah who is the actual land owner. The petitioner is living in the said house since  several years. On 27-02-14 some employee of the OP suddenly came to the house of the petitioner and said that they would take her meter for testing as per new guideline of APDCL. The complainant however, asked them to produce documents in this regard, which they failed. Later on, the complainant on bonafide belief allowed them to unfasten the electricity meter of her house. The employee of the OP immediately unfastened the meter and started to move from her house. Seeing that the complainant asked them to reinstall the meter but they informed that if she pay Rs.5000/- they will immediately reinstall the meter. Thereafter, the complainant immediately rushed to the office of the OP and informed the matter to the higher authority, but the higher authority informed her that her meter will be installed when she will deposit Rs.25000/- as security at APDCL, otherwise they will disconnect her electricity connection. Considering the above fact and circumstances, the complainant finding no other alternative was compelled to file the present case. The OP without serving any legal notice illegally removed the electricity meter taking the undue advantage of helplessness of the complainant. The complainant is a bonafide consumer of the OP and was  regularly paying the electricity bill. As such, the arbitrary act of the OP caused mental and physical harassment to the complainant. The above act of the OP is amount of deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence, the complainant prayed to direct the OP not to disconnect the electricity connection and to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for being harassment and mental agony along with the cost of litigation.

After registering the case notice was issued to the OP to which, OP contested the case by filing  written statement stating inter alia that the case is not maintainable  in law as well as in fact. The OP stated that the complainant is not a consumer of the OP. The consumer No.2090402304713442 is in the name of Dr. Mrinal Kumar Baruah who is the owner of the premises. The said consumer filed an application dated 22-02-14 informing the OP that the plot of land measuring 1B-0K-5Ls where, the instant electricity connection is provided was in his name, but now he has transferred the same in the name of Smti.Padmaja Saikia and Smti. Pallabi Baruah  being legal heir and as such, prayed to disconnect the said electricity connection. By another letter Dr. Mrinal Kumar Baruah again requested the OP to disconnect the said electricity line permanently. In pursuance of above two letters, the OP as per the statutory norms disconnected the said electricity connection.  Since, the electricity connection was in the name of Dr. Mrinal Kumar Baruah and at his advice the aforesaid electricity connection was disconnected and in this connection the present complainant has no locus standi and is not a bonafide consumer. As such, while rendering the service by the OP has not violated any right rather he acted and complied the request of the consumer with the statutory norms, rules and procedure and thereby has not committed any deficiency in service and prayed to dismiss the case.

    In this case the complainant gave evidence by swearing affidavit and exhibited as many as 3 (three) documents in support of her case. On the other hand, the OP examined one Sri Pallab Pran Bora and exhibited as many as 3 (three) documents to rebut the case of the complainant. Complainant orally argued the case whereas, the OP submitted his written argument.

 DISCUSSION, DECISION AND REASONS THEREOF:

Upon going through the evidence, documents and the argument advanced by both the parties it is found that the complainant and her family are living and possessing the house of one Mr. Mrinal Kumar Baruah who is the actual land owner. The petitioner is living in the said house since last several years and paying the electricity bill regularly. Whereas, on 27-02-14 some of the employee of the OP suddenly came to her house and removed the meter  by expressing that the meter requires to be tested but same was not reinstalled. As such, complainant filed two petitions before this Forum which were registered as C.P. Case No.5/14 and other being Misc.No.1/14. This Forum directed OP not to disconnect the electric connection until further order vide order dated 15-06-15 in connection with Misc. Case No.1/14.

  On the other hand, the OP by contesting the case stated that the complainant is not a consumer of the OP. The consumer No.2090402304713442 is in the name of Dr. Mrinal Kumar Baruah and the house situated in a plot of land belong to Dr. Mrinal Kumar Baruah. However, Dr. Mrinal Kumar Baruah transferred the said plot of land in the name of Smti. Padmaja Saikia and Smti. Pallabi Baruah by being the right of inheritance. Besides, Dr. Mrinal Kumar Baruah vide letter dated 22-02-14 and letter dated NIL i.e. Ext. 1 and 2 requested the OP to disconnect the said electricity connection permanently and as such as per statutory norms disconnected the said electricity connection. Further, it is stated that the present occupant has no locus standi and is not a bonafide consumer.

The fact from whatever have been noticed till this point, the scenario that emerged to this court is that the property which is a subject matter of this case belong to Dr. Mrinal Kumar Baruah. Further, it has come to light that Dr. Mrinal Kumar Baruah transferred the said plot of land to Smti. Padmaja Saikia and Smti. Pallabi Baruah by being right of inheritance.

Now the basic point of the issue to be considered whether the complainant is a lawful occupant of the property in question and the Power Distribution Company is under statutory obligation to give power to the premises of the complainant are basic matter to be considered ?

For getting supply of electricity at the premises of the complainant the complainant has to establish first that she is not an unlawful occupier or possessor  to the premises where she is residing and enjoying the electricity connection. However, we are unable to come to any finding in so far as to this question is concerned, which is highly disputed question of fact that have arisen and in our view the civil court is the only appropriate forum for adjudication and determination of this fact as complainant living in the said house for several years but failed to produce any evidence as to what capacity she is possessing the house. Neither of the parties have establish that about the occupation of the premises by the complainant. Regarding the possession of the complainant in the property in question, the OP has also not stated that the occupation is illegal or unauthorised and not to entitle under the statute of Electricity Act. In the case of James S. Peters v. CESC passed in W.P. No.2614 of 1998 where it has been observed that the only point that should be taken into consideration is that the complainant, being in possession of the premises and as such, possession has not been declared to be illegal or unauthorised he is entitled under statute to have the electricity connection. In the instant case the complainant in her evidence stated that she is residing in the premises since years together and is not unlawful occupant. That, the complainant, being in possession of the premises and such possession having not been declared to be illegal or unauthorised, she is entitled under the statute to have electricity. In Black’s Law Dictionary the word occupier has been defined as an occupant and an occupant, in the same dictionary has been defined to be a person in possession. Since, in the present case the complainant is residing in the said premises for long period and paying regularly the electricity bill which has not been contested by the OPs. From our foregoing discussions the complainant is a person in possession for several years. As such, till the complainant is evicted by the appropriate court she is entitled to get electricity connection till she possess the premises in  question. Further, it appears that she is not a trespasser since she is residing in the premises in question since long back and has right to claim electricity U/s 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 as she is under possession of the premise. In respect of the complainant’s right to have electricity so long as she remain in possession of the premises because no one, in the modern days can survive without Electricity, and therefore, the right to Electricity is also right to life and liberty in terms of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, this Forum makes it once again very clear that the electricity connection as already directed OP to continue in Misc. Case No.1/14 shall be continued until and unless the matter of dispute regarding the property or the premises is declared unauthorised and evicted by the competent forum or court. Further, the complainant is directed to pay the electricity bill regularly as per consumption. However, from the evidence on record it is found that the OP disconnected the electricity connection as per Ext. 1 and 2 letter of Dr. Mrinal Kumar Baruah being land owner, who requested the OP to disconnect his electricity connection and accordingly the OP has disconnected the electricity connection as per the statutory norm for which the OP cannot be held liable and there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP to pay any compensation and cost as prayed by the complainant.

In view of the above this Forum is of the opinion that electricity connection is allowed to be continued in the premises of the complainant till the complainant is evicted by the lawful authority.

Furnish copy of this judgment to the OP for compliance.