By : SMT. BANDANA ROY, PRESIDENT
The case of the complainant in brief is that he along with his family members live in a joint house with his other two brothers Krishnapada and Durgapada Adshikary in separate part of the undivided house. There is an electric connection in that house in the name of Krishnapada Adhikary being ID No. 223154674 which is only source of electricity in the joint house. Relation between the brothers have got strained presently and Krishnapada is not willing to share the line with his other brothers and in May, 2016 created pressure upon the complainant to take new connection from the Electric Department within six months. As such the complainant made an application online being No. 2002213330 dated 29.05.2016 before the OP for taking new electric connection in his house and got quotation as per WBSEDCL procedure A 2010 and deposited Rs. 447/-on 27.05.2016. Subsequently till 12th November, 2016 the OP did not take any action to that effect. On 13.11.2016 OP sent a letter to the complainant for submission of a copy of last electric bill and document of separation in the joint house. The complainant submitted the document of separation but not the copy of last bill. Still then no action was taken by the OP to provide the electric connection as prayed by the complainant. Lastly on 19.12.16 the complainant informed the matter to the DM of WBSEDCL and SM BGP,
CCC on 02.01.2017 for taking positive steps by the OP, but in vain. Brother of complainant is demanding more and more money for consumption of energy from his meter and also he is threatening to disconnect service connection on the part of the house, possessed by family of the complainant.
Under such circumstances, the complainant has filed this case before this Forum for the deficiency of service on the part of the OP no.1 with the prayers as made in the complaint petition.
OP no.1 has contested the case by filing written version and denied all the material allegations of the complaint petition. It is the specific case of this OP that the petitioner applied for electric connection and got receipt on 10.01.2006. That application of the complainant went missing from their office and accordingly the complainant filed another application on 29.05.2016 vide application No. 2002213330 for a load of 200 WT which is less than actual load and he deposited Rs. 447/- against system generated quotation without survey and got receipt. Necessary work order was issued vide work Order No. 207854 dated 17.08.2016 to the enlisted agency of the OP. During inspection by the agency of the OP it came to their notice that there is one existing meter no. B 1193959 in the name of Krishna Prasad Adhikary. Therefore the agency did not effect the service connection and it was informed to the complainant by letters dated 03.10.16 and 11.01.17 through local courier service which the complainant did not receive. Further the OP again sent the information by registered letter dated 01.01.2017. Also it is the case of the OP that the applicant declared load of 200 WT in the quotation which is lower than physical load 1050 Wt. So the OP asked the complainant for load extension but till now no reply is received from the applicant. Under such circumstances, until there is partition of the premises by regd. instrument there cannot be separate meter in the same premises where one meter is existing.
This OP No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the case with cost.
The points for consideration is whether the complaint is maintainable and whether the complainant petitioner is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for?
Decisions with Reasons.
Both the issue are taken up together for consideration for the sake of brevity and their inter relatedness.
We have perused the allegations of the complainant carefully along with the documents filed by him, also the evidence adduced by PW.1, 2 and 3 in the case as well as the written versions filed by the OPs and the documents filed by both the parties in this case.
Admittedly the complainant applied before the OP for effecting electric connection on 29.05.2016 and applied for only 200 load WT. Admittedly the system generated quotation was prepared on 29.05.16 and the quotation money was paid by the complainant. Accordingly work order was also issued vide Work Order No. 207854 dated 17.08.16. the only contention of the Op is that electric line could not be effected as because the complainant and his co-sharers are not separated by any registered partition agreement.
The complainant admitted that he lives in a part of the premises consisting five members on ploit no. 1282 and 1345 of mouza Gopinathpur. His other two brothers Krishnapada Adhikary and Debaprasad Adhikary also live in another part of the same house with their family members consisting of nine. Admittedly there is one existing electric meter in the name of brother of the complainant Krishnapada Adhikary being ID No. 223154674 through which all the family members of the three brothers enjoy electricity for about last 10 years. Lately due to some dispute brother of the complainant Krishnapada is not willing to share electricity from his meter and has allowed three months’ time to the complainant to take new connection from the Board otherwise he could disconnect the energy line in the part of the complainant. Accordingly the complainant applied for new connection and paid quotation money .
The complainant filed Annexure A – Application Status. Annexure B – letter of complaint dated 3.1016, requesting for proof of separation., Annexure C – report of inspection Team, Annexure D – letter to the complainant and Annexure E – letter to DE (F) & OM, Egra Division by A.E. € S.M. Bhagwanpur CCC.
We have perused all the documents.
Annexure B letter dated 03.10.16 is the report of the OP and it says that energy meter connection could not be effected right now by the office due to Existing electric connection. (M) id/No : Reason for Sep. con to be stated. Last bill Xerox proof of separation etc. required.
Ld advocate for the complainant referred to a decision reported in 2007 (1) CHN (WP No. 678)(W)/2005 which says that the occupier who is already in a position to enjoy electricity supplied to the premises is not entitled to seek enforcement of the obligation of licensee simply because he wishes to get an independent supply. If they want independent supply nothing prevents them from approaching to the licensee in accordance with law.
In this connection the complainant adduced evidence of PW-2 who is Satyanarayan Adhikary who says that complainant is his uncle and he has adduced evidence in this case by filing affidavit before this Forum for his uncle. He has stated that they live in the same house separately and his uncle has applied for separate electric connection. In his cross-examination he has stated that they have amicably partitioned the case property but the same has not been made by any registered instrument and he has also admitted that there is an electric meter in their house in the name of Krishnapada Adhikary in the building in question and he enjoys electricity from that meter.
We have also perused the evidence of PWs 1 and 3.
In this connection it appears that the OP did not give new connection to the complainant’s part of the premises as the premises is not electrically separated. But it cannot be ignored that the complainant and his co-sharers have separated amicably. It cannot be decided in the present case whether amicable partition is illegal without registered instrument. Admittedly the complainant and his brothers are in mutual partition in the building and it is admitted by the PW-2. So the complainant, in our view is entitled to separate electric connection in his part of the building and OP should give that connection to the part of the complainant with an undertaking that the complainant and his brothers will prepare an instrument of partition in this regard. As electric supply in a domestic premises is an essential service and the complainant is entitled to get that service.
AIR 2006 Calcutta 47 held Electricity Act (2003) Section 43 Constitution of India Art 21 –Right to electricity is also right to life and liberty in terms of Art. 21 because no one in modern days can survive without electricity.
2001 (1) CLJ 140 held Electricity is an essential amenity for life and a person cannot be denied this on the ground of property dispute.
AIR 2010 Punjab and Haryana page 64 held No objection certificate from co-sharers cannot be insisted upon by Electricity Board for grant of electricity connection.
Considering all the above aspect, we are of the view that the complainant has been able to prove the complaint case and he is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for.
Thus the complaint case succeeds.
Considering that the OP No1 is an autonomous body we are of the view that in the present case the complainant is not entitled to get any relief in respect of compensation or litigation.
Hence, it
ORDERED
That the CC No. 102 of 2017 be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP.
The OP no.1 is directed to give new electric service connection in the premises of the complainant within one month from the date of this order.
Failing to give electric service connection in the premises of the complainant within the time prescribed, the OP no.1 will be liable to pay punitive charge of Rs. 100/- per day which will be payable to the Consumer Welfare Fund.
Let copy of this judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost.
