The present complaint case is filed by one Sri Murali Maharana against the CESC and its District Engineer, Southern District, praying for a direction upon the OPs to install meter and supply electricity at the premises of the Complainant, compensation for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/-.

Briefly stated, case of the Complainant, is that, on the basis of his application seeking service connection, OPs conducted inspection of the schedule premises of the Complainant.  Subsequently, on the basis of a letter 22-09-2015, issued by the OP No. 2, he paid a sum of Rs. 12,691/- as security deposit to the office of the OPs.  Thereafter, Complainant visited the office of the OPs number of times and requested them for restoration of new electric meter and connection at the premises of the Complainant, but to no avail.  Hence, this case.

OPs contested the case by filing WV, whereby they denied all the material allegations of the complaint.  It is further stated that on 17-09-2015, they received an application from the Complainant for installation of a new service connection of 0.3 KW domestic load through underground supply at the occupied portion of the Complainant.  Following due inspection, they issued MASD bill and after receiving requisite money from the Complainant and pursuant to due compliance of all formalities, the men of OPs went to effect new service connection on 05-10-2015, but could not do so due to strong objection raised at site by one Smt. Sikha Maity.  These OPs also received an objection letter from the said objector, whereby she disputed the common passage through which service cable had to be let for providing new supply at the aforesaid premises through installation of new service in favour of the Complainant.  After receiving said objection letter, these OPs issued a letter to the Complainant to send his observation on the objection raised by said objector.  OPs also sent a letter to said Ms Sikha Maity on 03-10-2015 to substantiate her right of objection by submitting documentary evidence to establish the same.   It is stated that despite receipt of said letter, none of them has produced any document to substantiate their right over the common passage in question.  Accordingly, they prayed for dismissal of the case.

Point for determination is whether the Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.

Decision with reasons

The primary relief sought for by the Complainant is to get supply of electricity and installation of new meter in his favour. 

Sec. 43(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003, stipulates that, “[Save as otherwise provided in this Act, 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 requiring such supply”.   

          In terms of the above-mentioned statutory stipulation, the owner or occupier of any premises is entitled to supply of electricity.  However, to our utter surprise, we find that, nowhere in the petition of complaint the Complainant has clarified in what capacity he is residing in the said premises. 

It is merely stated in the petition of complaint that the Complainant, along with his family members, is residing in the schedule property since more than 35 years in any manner whatsoever.  No document, viz., rent receipt, property tax bill, Voter ID Card, Aadhar Card, PAN Card, parcha is placed on record to establish the bona fide of his claim as of residing in the schedule premises.  We afraid, on the basis of such vague assertion as made by the Complainant, we cannot come to any conclusion about the actual status of the Complainant in respect of the said premises.

Further, it appears from the WV that one Smt. Sikha Maity strongly objected to providing service connection through the common passage of the schedule premises and also submitted a written objection to the OPs.  However, we find that the Complainant has not made any whisper about such objection in his petition of complaint, let alone make her a party to the case.  It is a clear pointer of the fact that the Complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands.    For proper adjudication of a case, it is of paramount importance that parties to the case make a consorted effort and bring every aspect of the case in the complaint.

Insofar as the status of the Complainant in respect of the said premises is not clearly established, we are afraid that, no relief can be accorded to the Complainant.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

that CC/209/2016 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OPs but without any costs.