FINAL ORDER/JUDGEMENT
Smt. SAHANA AHMED BASU, Member
The case of the complainant, in short, is that the complainant applied for new domestic electric connection to the OPson 03/10/2019 for his residence and after verifying all the necessary documents Ops accepted the said application form for the new on that date. Accordingly, after inspection, OPs informed the complainant through a letter that more than one application in favour of the complainant at the abovementioned premises is under process. On receipt of the aforesaid letter the complainant met the concerned officer of the OPs at their office and requested him to give a meter/connection in the name of complainant and if there is any other application in his name OPs can cancel that. Despite of request OPs did not pay any heed to the complainant. Finding no other alternative, the complainant approached before this Commission praying for a direction upon the OPs to give new electric connection to his flat and for other reliefs.
O.Ps. have contested the case by filing W.V. contending inter alia that the present consumer complaint is misleading. The specific case of the OPs is that the complainant has applied for domestic 2 KW new connection. During inspection it is found that the complainant has already applied for two domestic meters for 0.5 KW and 0.3 KW domestic load under reference No. 01/13477/19 on 31/08/2019 and under reference No. 01/14058/19 on 16/09/2019 respectively in respect of his premises at 26/2, Purbachal Main Road , Floor No 1, Kolkata – 700078 . Moreover on perusal of the records it is found that previously another application for new meter (commercial) under reference no. 01/09661/18 for the same premises of complainant was enjoyed electricity from one DiptenDey. It is also revealed during the inspection that the complainant is getting electric supply from one of the existing meters of the premises. Therefore the application of the complainant is rejected on the ground of splitting the load under Regulation 14 of NotificationNo 53 of WBERC dated 2nd April 2013. Further OPs submitted that the complainant has suppressed material facts while filing the instant case before this Ld. Commission. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and the instant complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Both the parties have tendered evidence through affidavit and have also filed BNAs. We have travelled over all the materials on record coupled with its annexure thereto and given a thoughtful consideration to the argument advanced before us.
Fact remains that, the complainant made an application dated 03.10.2019 to the OPs for new electric connection / meter for domestic purpose. It is also true that the OPs replied the letter of the complainant on 04.10.2019 informing him that more than one application in favourof the complainant at the same premises under process. Therefore the application stands cancelled.
On perusal of the record, we find that the complainant first time applied for new connection on 31/08/2019 for 0.5 KW to the OPs in respect of his premises 26/2, Purbachal Main Road, Floor No. 1 , Kolkata - 700078 and that application was rejected by the OPs .by stating that :
Thereafter the complainant again applied for new connection on 16/09/2019 for 0.3 KW and on 03/10/2019 for 2 KW. Both the applications are rejected by the OPs on the groundthat:
2. After our site inspection and verification of our records , we understand that more than one application in your favour at the above premses is under process.
3. Therefore , the application stands cancelled.
Ld. Advocate for the OPs argued that it is found on perusal of records that previously another application for a new meter (commercial) under reference no. 01/09661/18 for the same premises of complaint was received by the OPs from one DiptenDey. Office record revealed thatthree meters were already catering supply to the premises including complainant.In support of this submission OPs furnished a photocopy of a letter dated 02/09/2019 issued by them to complainant (Annexure B of the WV) wherein OPs communicated the complainant that:
1. We refer to your application vide Annexure A , dated 31/08/2019 for an inspection and obtaining an estimate for new connection at the above premises .
2. The findings from our site inspection indicates that the premises has already been provided with supply of electricity connection and you are deriving supply from an existing meter thereat .Hence , in our opinion , the instant application for new connection is with the intention of splitting the load to obtain the benefit of lower charges .
3. Accordingly , as per the terms of Clause 14 of the Regulation No. 53 of the Learned West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission dated 2nd April 2013, we, therefore, regret our inability to accede to your request for a separate supply in your favour at the above premises.
4. We trust we have been able to clarify our position. In case you would like to submit furthet on this issue , you may approach the Regional Manager at the above address within 7 (seven) days from the date of this communication, failing which the matter shall be treated as closed.
It is further argued by the Ld. Advocate for the OPs that, the conduct of the complainant is clear and apparent that complainant applied for three domestic meters with different loads one after another for the same premises with the intention of splitting the load to obtain benefit of lower charges /lower rate slab.Regulation 14 of Notification No. 53 of the WBERC states:
If any applicant / intending consumer / consumer submits any application for new connection(s) with the intention of splitting the load to obtain the benefit of lower charges or furnishes wrong/inaccurate /false statements, his application would be liable to be rejected under the provision of the Act , or the regulations made thereunder, and 25% of payments / deposits if already paid by him by way of charges for obtaining new connections in terms of these regulations , shall be forfeited by the distribution licensee before the rest of the charges is refunded to him. While rejecting the application the consumer /intending consumer is to be intimated in writing about the ground of rejection. It will be the onus of the applicant to prove that the application for new connection is not for the purpose for splitting the load.
In the complaint petition the complainant submitted that he made an application for new domestic connection / meter to the OPs on 03/10/2019. But documents on record furnished by the OPs speaks that the complainant actually applied three domestic connection with different loads which are not whispered in the four corners of the complaint petition.Moreover, the complainant submitted that he requested the OPs that only one meter is required and if any other application in his name OPs can cancel the said application. We found discrepancy in this submission as the evidential documents shows that the complainant applied thrice to the OPs for new connection. It appears to us that suppression of material facts on the part of the complainant is revealed and the first application was rightly rejected by the OPs on the ground of split load in accordance with the said Regulation 14 of Notification No.53 of WBERC.
Ld. Advocate for the complainant argued that the complainant is entitled to get the new connection under section 43 of The Electricity Act, 2003. But Regulation 14 of Notification no.53 of WBERC clearly stated that it is ‘It will be the onus of the applicant to prove that the application for new connection is not for the purpose for splitting the load.’ In this context, the complainant has miserably failed to establish his case. Therefore, no negligence in service and unfair trade practice is found on the part of the OPs.
Thus, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.
In the result, the complaint case fails.
Hence,
Ordered
That the complaint case be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OPs but without any cost.
