FINAL ORDER/JUDGEMENT

SMT. SAHANA AHMED BASU, MEMBER.

The case of the complainant  before the Ld District Commission  in brief , is that the complainant applied for new domestic electric  connection to the O.P. for his residence ( 996, Purbachal Main Road , Kolkata-78 ) at 2^nd floor through telephone being Ref No. 01/07163/19.  The complainant issued a letter to the O.P. and made a request to give him new meter for domestic purpose. The complainant went to office of the O.P. and an officer of the O.P. asked him to submit House Building Plan / Deed of the aforesaid premises otherwise they are unable to give supply of electric to the petitioner. The Lessee of the premises is complainant’s father namely Sri Panchu Shikari with whom the complainant have no relation. Thereafter, the complainant submitted KMC Tax Bill/Deed copy of his father’s name. But no action has been taken by the O.P. till the date. Finding no other alternative, the complainant approached before this Ld Forum praying for direction upon the O.P. to give new electric connection to the complainant.

O.P. have contested the case by filing W.V. contending inter alia that the present consumer complaint is misconceived, malafide, fraudulent and harassing. The specific case of the O.P. is that the complainant has applied for new electric meter for domestic load in December 2018. During inspection it was found by the O.P.  that the said premises is a two storied building with six rooms and there is already a meter at the circuit which caters supply of electricity to the premises. Therefore, the O.P. sent a letter to the complainant to furnish a fresh form through the website of the O.P.  and stating therein the correct name , address, premises no. etc to enable to proceed further. But the O.P. did not receive any feedback from the complainant’s end. They issued two letters to the complainant and requested him to ask the existing consumer of the said premises to apply for additional load. The complainant again  applied for new electric meter for domestic purpose in April 2019 . This time, after inspection, the said application was rejected by the O.P. on the ground that more than one application have filed for getting new meter in the same premises which is under process . O.P. have further stated that they have acted as per Electricity Act 2003 and as per clause 14 of regulation 53 of West Bengal Regulatory Commission  dated 02. 04. 2013 .There is no deficiency of service on the part of the O.P. and the instant complaint is liable to be dismissed .

Now, in the background of these facts , the question which falls for consideration in this case  whether the petitioner , who has been admittedly residing in the said premises for a long period of time , has acquired any right  to obtain electric connection .

We have travelled through all the materials on record produced by both the parties coupled with its annexure thereto and given a thoughtful consideration.

The admitted fact is that the complainant is a bonafide resident of the premises on the 2^nd floor of 996, Purbachal Main Road , Kolkata- 78. He was enjoying electricity along with his family from the meter standing in the name of his father who is the owner of the premises and resides in the 1^st floor.  The petitioner applied for obtaining new domestic electric connection  to the O.P. after observing all the formalities therein ( Ref No . 01/07163/19) for his  2^nd floor of the said premises .  Ld Advocate for the complainant submitted that the reason behind this is family dispute. In view of such family dispute his father disconnected the electric supply from his son and at present he is living without electricity with his own family members. The O.P. after receiving the application of the complainant caused an inspection in respect of the premises of the complainant , but ultimately refused to give connection on the plea that there is already a meter at the circuit which caters supply of electricity to the premises. The complainant again made an application to the O.P. for the same purpose after few months. That was also rejected by the O.P.

Perusing the documents furnished by the parties we find that the petition applied for a new electric connection for domestic purpose to the O.P. Ld. Advocate for the complainant submitted that the said application was accepted by the O.P.  after verifying all the necessary documents about the petitioner’s status i.e. Voter card , Aadhar card , gas connection etc . Ld Advocate for the O.P. submitted that the complainant applied on 27.12.2018 for new meter supply of electricity for domestic load  at the suit premises and they inspected the said premises on 28.12.2018 and found that there is already a meter  being No 3549788 under consumer No. 75085059005 standing in the name of Sri Panchu Shikari who is the father of the complainant and the complainant derives the supply from his fathers meter .After the inspection the O.P. sent a letter on 29.12.2018 to the complainant to furnish a fresh application through their website stating the correct name , address , premises no. etc to proceed further . It is also submitted by the O.P. that on 14.01.19 and on 15.01,2019 they issued two letters requesting the complainant to ask the consumer of the said premises namely Sri Panchu Shikari to apply for additional load to fulfill the complainant’s requirement. But no such evidences are furnished by the O.P. nor does the complainant adjudicate any document in this regard. It is observed by us that an application furnished by the complainant as an evidence which goes to show that the complainant act to the tune of the letter of the O.P. dated 29.12.2018 and on 30.04.2019 further applied for new electric meter for supply of electricity for domestic purpose being ref. No. MR NO. 01/07163/19. This time O.P. rejected the said application on the ground that more than one application have filed for getting new meter. In this regard the O.P. took the plea in terms of Clause 14 of Regulation 53 of west Bengal regulatory Commission dated 02/04/2013which says :

REGULATION  14^TH EFFECT OF SPLITTING OF LOAD If anyapplicant/intending consumer / consumer submits any application for new connection(s) with the intention of splitting the load to obtain 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 percent of payments / deposits if already made by him by way of charges for obtaining new connection 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 for rejection. It will be the onus of the applicant to prove that the application for new connection is not for the purpose of splitting the load .  Any dispute in this regard is to be settled in the Office of the Ombudsman.

The O.P. have placed  few citations before this Commission which are

1. W.P. No. 15088(W) of 2010

     MD. WAKIL Vs. District Engineer , Calcutta Supply Co . -  C.E.S.C.

2. WPA 11500 of 2020

Saha Alam Molla  VS.Mr. Rajiv Lal for C.E.S.C. Limited

3. WPA 5301 of 2020

Biplab DasVs. C.E.S.C. Limited and Anr.

4. WPA 7065 of 2020 with IA No: CAN 1 of 2020 D/d 06.10.2020

Bablu DasVs. CESC Limited and Anr.

All these citations show that Hon’ble Courts had sent those cases to the Ombudsman to decide the matter in accordance with law. In the present  matter, the Ld advocate of the O.P. argued that the complainant’s father is a consumer who is enjoying electricity and the complainant is enjoying electricity from the same meter. The O.P. failed to furnish any such evidence in this regard.  On the other hand, the complainant stated that he lives separately from his father and the connection on the 2^nd floor where he resides with his own family was disconnected by his father. He is living without electricity.  As such, he needs a new meter of electricity .It is also submitted on behalf of the CESC that the owner of the said premises Sri Panchu Adhikari and the complainant did not furnish any lawful document that they are living separately . The O.P. took the shelter of the Clause 14 of regulation 53 of West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission dt. 02.04.2013 to regret inability to fulfil the request of the complainant for a separate meter supply in the name of the complainant. But it is not clear to us that how the O.P. arrived to the opinion that the complainant applied for the new electric connection only to split the load and that too the basis of such assessment and / or rejection is in dark. No cogent evidence is filed for the O.P. in support of their contention and as such we think, it is only their presumption. Facts remain that they rejected the complainant’s application on two occasions for different reason.  

The Ld Advocate for the complainant annexed and submitted some cases which have similarity with this case . These are

1. CPJ – 2006 – 10 – CESC Ltd Vs. Chandra Bhushan Chowdhury . State Commission . West Bengal.
2. CPJ – 2009 – II – 502 –CESC Ltd Vs. Tanwir Alam . State Commission West Bengal .
3. WP No. 9099(w) 2006 – Rabi Chakraborty Vs. CESC Ltd .Hon’ble Girish Chandra Gupta – J
4. WP No. 7353(w) of 2003 Sonaka barik Vs. CESC LTd . Hon’ble Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay – J
5. WP No. 21295(w) 2006 -Hon’ble Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay
6. WPA 3054 of 2020 Smt Mina Chakraborty  Vs. CESC Ltd . Hon’ble Arindam Mukherjee – J
7. CAN 990 of 2005 MAT 267 of 2005  Shyam Sing Vs. CESC Ltd passed by Hon’ble Justice V S Sirpurakar and Joytosh Banerjee-J.
8. MAT. No. 392 of 2007 – Amarendra Singh Vs. CESC ltd & Ors.passed by Hon’ble Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay and Tapan Mukherjee .JJ.
9. WP No. 8631(w) of 2007.
10. WP No. 6175(w) of 200 – Nemai Hati Vs. CESC Ltd and Ors -  passed by Hon’ble Asoke Kumar Ganguly .J.
11. 11) Baburam Dom  at the rate ofDome Vs. CESC Ltd and Anr.
12. 12)WP No. 22728(w) of 2008
13. 13) RP No. 350 of 2000

On perusal of the above documents , it is found by  us that in the case of Nemai Hait Vs. CESC Ltd And Ors Hon’ble Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly allowed the writ petition keeping in mind the broad vision of Article 21 of the Constitution of India: Since the expression of life under Article21 has been construed to mean quality of life and life with all the amenities and benefits in a civilized society , the right to get electricity is certainly covered within the broad sweep of life under Article 21 .

In the present case the petitioner is staying in the said premises since childhood and now  is staying with his family .In support of the of the said fact the petitioner has disclosed various documents like LEASE DEED , Voter Identity Card , Aadhar Card , etc in respect of the said premises .In the case of Amarendra Singh Vs. CESC Ltd & Ors (M.A.T. No.392 of 2007) Hon’ble Justice Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay and Hon’ble Justice Tapan Mukherjee gave observation  that Legality and /or validity of the occupation of the premises in question by the appellant can be decided in the Civil Court but that will not prevent the said appellant frem enjoying the benefit of electric connection. Reverting back  to the facts involved in the instant case , the rejection of an application for new connection was found on the ground that it is intended for splitting the load to obtain the benefit of lower charges . The reliance appeared to have been made on regulation 14 of the afore said regulation which provides the rejection of an application on the above count. The aforesaid regulation applies in a different situation and not the one , which exist in the instant case . If the entire premises catered with the  electricity indicating the total load  and the occupants thereof enjoying the same , it is within the power of Licensee Company  to deny the new connection if the occupants intend to split the load . The aforesaid provision do not apply to a situation where each occupants have its independent right, title and interest in respect of their definite portion having no community interest with other occupants .

Admittedly the petitioner is a co-owner of the undivided premises  which is catered with supply of electricity through a meter installed therein in the name of petitioner’s father. In the case of Syed Masihul Hassan Vs. CESC Ltd & ORS (W.P.19630(w) of 2016 ) Hon’ble Justice Harish Tandon  observed

When the family is united, there cannot be any dispute that the co-owners may enjoy the electricity through a meter installed at the premises in the name of any one of the co-owners. The moment harmony is shattered and co-owners have fallen apart, the difficulty arose and the co-owner,  who did not have the meter in his own name, is left in lurch to have the benefit of enjoyment of the essential element of life .

Regulation 14 cannot be applied when an application is made by the co-owner of the said undivided property, as it is never intended to have the split of the existing load with a dishonest intention to avail the lower charges. Obviously the said Regulation is framed to avoid the split of load at the instance of an unscrupulous consumer, so that lower rate of charge for lower consumption may be availed of.”

In this connection, we can also rely upon the case of Soumitra Banerjee and Ors Vs. CESC Ltd & Ors reported in 1992 (2) CHN 573where the Ld Judge interpreted the provision of section 12(6) of the Indian Electricity Act and particularly the Ld Judge interpreted expression of ‘lawful occupier’ occurring in sub section(6) of section 12 of the said Act .In the sub section (6) of the section 12 it is set out

In this section, occupier of any building or land means  a person in lawful occupation of that building or land .

In the abovementioned case the Ld Judge accepted the diluted meaning of expression of lawful occupier and observed ;

All occupiers who are peace loving, who have an arguable case which might succeed in the end are entitled to get electricity connection notwithstanding opposition by the opponents . In case they are thrown out they will be thrown out of duly electrified premises and that is not a matter which is likely to affect the substance of the civil dispute  or litigation amongst the parties.

In view of the above,  we are of the opinion that  the instant matter is not case of splitting load. The petitioner intended to have the new meter in his own name, so that he can enjoy the electricity in the portion  in his occupation. The O.P. cannot establish that the complaint petition contains any wrong/inaccurate or false petition. Thus, the gesture of the O.P. in not providing electric connection in the name of the complainant appears to us as deficiency in service.

Thus the consumer complaint is allowed with following directions-

1. The O.P. is directed to install a new electric meter in the name of the complainant at premises No.996, Sree Haripally, Kolkata-78 within 30 days from today after observing all formalities.
2. O.P. is also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as compensation for mental agony, agony and harassment to the complainant within the stipulated period. 
3. O.P. is directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant within the stipulated period.

Copy of the judgement be given to the parties as per rules.