Per Mr.B.S.Wasekar, Hon’ble President
1) The complainant has filed this complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. According to the complainant, he is doing business at 59 A, Ahmed Sailor Compound, Mahatma Phule Road, Naigaon, Dadar, Mumbai. He had filed application for electricity connection for two times. First application is dated 30th September, 2009. His application for electricity connection was sanctioned. He had deposited supply charges `1,500/- and security deposit `150/- on 8th March, 2010. The complainant was supposed to complete his electricity wiring. On 19th March, 2010, the officers from opponent’s office visited the premises of the complainant. They found that there was no electricity wiring from electricity meter room to the complainant’s premises. Accordingly, they submitted their report. The complainant could not contact the opponent’s office for next twenty days. Therefore, the opponent cancelled the sanctioned order. The complainant requested for electricity connection but the opponent did not allow it and asked him to resubmit fresh application. Accordingly, in May-2011, the complainant submitted fresh application. But, the opponent avoided to give electricity connection. Therefore, the complainant has filed this complaint for direction to the opponent to give electricity connection. He has also prayed for compensation for mental agony.
2) The opponent filed written statement and submitted that complaint is barred by limitation. The complainant applied for new connection on 30th September, 2009. During the investigation, no responsible person was found on the spot. Thereafter, the complainant submitted copy of ration card and voting card but he has not submitted the occupancy proof to support his application. The complainant was asked to bring N.O.C. from the existing meter holder. The complainant has produced N.O.C. from Shri Tatoba Vitthal Bhaigade. Therefore, his requisition was sanctioned. The complainant produced electricity work completion certificate from contractor M/s Jai Mata Di Electricals. During inspection, it was found that electricity work was not completed therefore notice was served on the complainant on 19th March, 2010. However, the complainant did not turn up. Therefore, his requisition was cancelled on 18th May, 2010. Again, he has filed application on 11th May, 2011. During visit on 18th May, 2011, the premises was locked. During second inspection visit on 9th August, 2011, it was found that the premises was divided with brick wall in two parts. The complainant was asked to submit bank attested signature of Shri Tatoba Vitthal Bhaigade within fifteen days to verify the signature on N.O.C. There was difference in signature of Shri Tatoba Vitthal Bhaigade. The complainant did not submit bank attested signature. Therefore, his requisition was cancelled for second time.
3) As per the Electricity Act, 2003, for electricity meter installation, electricity work completion certificate is necessary but the certificate produced by the complainant was not proper as the work was not completed. As the complainant failed to fulfill the requirements under Electricity Act, 2003, his both the applications were rejected.
4) Both the parties filed their affidavit of evidence and produced the copies of documents showing the payment of supply charges and security deposit. The opponent produced copies of investigation report. At the time of argument, the complainant remained absent. Therefore, the argument of the opponent is heard. After going through the record, following points arise for our consideration.
POINTS
Sr. No. | Points | Findings |
1) | Whether there is deficiency in service ? | No |
2) | Whether the complainant fulfilled the requirement under the Electricity Act, 2003 ? | No |
3) | Whether the complainant is entitled for electricity connection and compensation as prayed ? | No |
4) | What Order ? | As per final order |
REASONS
5) As to Point No.1 to 3:- The complainant has not produced any document showing his ownership and occupancy in the premises where he has demanded electricity connection. On failure of it, he is not entitled to claim the electricity connection. He has produced N.O.C. from the existing meter holder. But there is difference in signature. The complainant was asked to produce bank attested signature of the existing meter holder. But the same was not produced. Therefore, his requisition was rejected. The complainant has produced electricity completion work certificate. But, during inspection, it was found that work was not completed and therefore electricity supply could not be given. All these contentions of the opponent are not challenged by the complainant. He had not produced any evidence to show that electricity work was completed and the opponent’s report is false. He has also not produced bank attested signature of the existing meter holder. The complainant has not fulfilled the requirement under the Electricity Act, 2003, therefore he is not entitled for electricity supply.
6) As per the complaint, the complainant is doing the business in the premises. It means that premises is used for commercial purpose and he is claiming electricity supply for business purpose. Therefore, the complainant is not the ‘Consumer’ as pr the provision u/s 2(1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
7) Thus, there is no merit in the complaint. Hence, we proceed to pass the following order.
O R D E R
1) Complaint stands dismissed.
2) Parties are left to bear their own costs.
3) Inform the parties accordingly.
Pronounced
Dated 1st November, 2013
