DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Sanjiv Arora son of Shri J.L. Arora, aged about 42 years, Prop. of M/s Raj Traders, H.No. 708-A, Kesho Ram Complex, Sector 45, Burail, Chandigarh.

                                                 ---Complainant.

V E R S U S

Engineering Department, U.T. and Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh, through SDO Electricity, Sub Division No.09, Sector 43, Chandigarh. 

---- Opposite Party

BEFORE:          SH. LAKHMAN SHARMA                         PRESIDENT

MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA                       MEMBER

                    SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU                   MEMBER

Argued By:  Sh. P.K. Kukreja, Advocate for the Complainant.

                                Sh. M.S. Rana, Govt. Pleader for Opposite Party.

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

1]           Complainant has filed the present complaint against the Opposite Party, on the ground that the Complainant is the resident of H.No. 708/1, Kesho Ram Complex Burail, Sector 45, Chandigarh. The Complainant is residing in the said premises as a Tenant since 1.5.2005 and is occupying 4 rooms, 2 toilets and 1 kitchen at 1^st floor of the said building. The Complainant claims that the landlord of the said building in order to increase the rentals had started to unduly harass by disconnecting the electricity as well as the water supply on and off. The Complainant in order to get rid of this difficulty applied for an independent electricity connection and paid Rs.15,172/- on 1.2.2010 and Rs.10,0000/- while moving an application for the same. The entire set of documents submitted with the Opposite Party is annexed as Annexure C-1. The Complainant claims that the Opposite Party is under obligation to install the electricity meter and supply the electricity without any delay as per the provisions of Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003. 

              The Complainant also alleges that his landlord has connived with the Opposite Party in order to deny him the electricity connection. The Complainant in para 4 of his complaint has categorically stated that the said premises is constructed upto 4 stories. The ground floor consists of Shops. The Complainant is the occupant at 1^st floor. And at 2^nd floor the landlord along with two other tenants are residing. The entire third floor is in the occupation of the owner of the said building. Non-releasing of the connection by the Opposite Party and not doing needful in this direction amounts to deficiency in service on its part.  The Complainant seeks the following relief against the Opposite Party: -     

[a] Direction for providing electricity connection at the rented portion of 1^st floor of #708/1 Kesho Ram Complex, Burail, Sector 45, Chandigarh. 

[b] A compensation to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- for causing mental harassment and agony. 

[c] Rs.11,000/- as cost.

2]           Opposite Party has filed its reply/version contesting the claim of the Complainant and has taken preliminary objections to the effect that the Complainant is not a consumer of the Opposite Party, the landlord of the premises in question has not been impleaded and as such, he was a necessary party to this dispute. And also a notice u/s 80 CPC has not been served to the Opposite Party which was mandatory before filing the present complaint. As such, there is no cause of action against the Opposite Party to answer this complaint.

              On merits, Opposite Party has filed its para wise reply to all the averments of the present complaint taking strong objections with regard to not impleading the landlord of the premises as necessary party; whereas, in reply to para nos. 2, 3 and 4 it is claimed that as it does not relate to the Opposite Party the same does not deserve to be answered by it. The Opposite Party in its reply to para 5 claims that two different numbers as 707 and 708 have been attributed to one building alone. As there are already 03 electricity connections existing in the said premises and another electricity connection cannot be released in the said building as per the standing instructions of the department. The instructions governing this aspect permit only one connection per floor and as floor wise meters have already been installed, hence another connection cannot be granted.  Furthermore, in reply to para 7, it is stated that as 3 electricity connections are already existing in the premises, hence one more meter cannot be installed.

              In reply to the remaining paras, the same are denied for want of knowledge but it is made known that the Complainant is using the electricity from one of these three electricity connections. The Opposite Party claims that the present complaint deserves to be dismissed as the same being devoid of merits with heavy cost in favour of the Opposite Party.

3]           Parties led their respective evidences.

4]           Having gone through the entire complaint, version of the Opposite Party, the evidence of the parties and with the able assistance of the ld. Counsel for the Complainant and Ld. Govt. Pleader for the Opposite Party, we have come to the following conclusions.

5]           The preliminary objection of the opposite party about the complainant not being a consumer do not hold ground because the complainant after having applied for an electricity connection in a proper manner along with the requisite fee, qualifies to be a “consumer” as per Section 2d(1) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Even the requirement of impleading the landlord of the premises as necessary party is also vague as opposite party has not disclosed any reason for it. The opposite party has also not cited any clause that compels the complainant to serve a notice under Section 80 of CPC. At the same time when the Opposite Party has contested the claim of the Complainant by filing this version this objection too carries no weight as they could have treated the notice of this complaint and should have come up with a solution to the problem before filing the version. Hence the preliminary objections are ignored.

6]            The opposite party while denying the contents of Para 5 has made a discloser in para 5 of its reply that there is one building of house no.707 and 708 and there are three electricity connections in the said building. The detail of these connections as submitted by the opposite party shows them to be in the name of Baldev Raj 708 under account no. BU15/042800R, Baldev Raj Sharma 707 under BU15/065800H and Baldev Raj Sharma 707 under BU15/065900Q. However no other detail is made available from their records to prove that these connections stand released in the name of one person and all these connections are installed in one single building bearing no. 707 and 708.                                                               

7]          The opposite party in reply to Para 6 submits that three nos. of electricity connections are already existing in the premises in question another connection can not be released in the said building. However the opposite party has failed to prove that as per law there was a cap on releasing more than three connections in one single building. In the same paragraph the opposite party claims that as per standing instructions of the Department floor wise connection is to be released whereas they have failed to identify that out of these three connections mentioned in their reply which one of them is attributed to which floor of the said building. As the Complainant has claimed himself to be in occupation of the entire 1^st floor the Opposite Party should have made it clear as to which meter is installed in the said 1^st floor to prove their point. As the Opposite Party claims that in the present case floor wise meters have already been installed and further another meter cannot be installed in this building. At the same time the Opposite Party while taking this categorical stand has failed to prove that the building in question has only three floors and there does not exist any other floor which requires the connection applied by the complainant.

8]           The Opposite Party has failed to rebut the claim of the Complainant as mentioned in para 4 of his complaint that the said building has four stories and that the Complainant resides at the 1^st floor of the said building which requires the new electricity connection in the name of the Complainant. As per the admission of the Opposite Party three connections are already existing in the said building and their failure to prove that there is a cap on releasing a 4^th connection in the said building goes against them. We have gone through the 1^st clause of the circular issued by the Chief Engineer, U.T. Chandigarh which speaks as follows:-

“Separate electric connections for each floor of the residential houses may be allowed in the name of owner but more than one connection at each floor may not be allowed on any floor. This will also apply in case of dealing with extension of load cases.” 

              Hence, as per the above mentioned provision there is no limit in issuing electricity connection to the Complainant. It is also important to visit the clause 8.5 (5) New Connection submitted by the Opposite Party which mentions:-

“(5) The Licensee shall verify the application and the attached documents at the time of receipt of application. Written acknowledgement shall be issued on the spot. If the application is complete, otherwise it should mention the shortcomings, if the application is incomplete.

              In the absence of any communication from the side of the Opposite Party with regard to its objections to the said application for fresh connection by the Complainant, the Opposite Party has wronged on this score too.

9]           In the light of above observations, the present complaint succeeds against the Opposite Party and the same is allowed with following directions: -

[a]     Release the electricity connection in the name of the Complainant and supply the energy after installing the meter;

[b]     Pay to the Complainant an amount of Rs.20,000/- against compensation for causing harassment;

[c]     Pay Rs.7000/- as litigation costs.

10]          The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt; thereafter, the Opposite Party shall be liable for an interest @18% per annum on Rs.20,000/- till it is paid, besides for the cost of litigation.

11]          Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

17^th February, 2012.                                                                   

Sd/-

 (LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

 (MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER