SRI BIJAYA KUMAR DAS,PRESIDENT:-
Deficiency in service in respect of denial of a new electric connection to the Complainant are the allegations arrayed against Ops.
2. Complaint in brief reveals that, Complainant being an unemployed youth having no other source of income wanted to open a Jewellery shop on the building of one Rabindra Nath Mohanty (Op No.6), which is situated over plot No.663/1853 correspondence to khata No. 497/24 of Mouza-Madhial, Accordingly, after execution of an agreement with landlord applied for a electricity connection to Op-electricity authority in capacity of a tenant. But the Op-electricity authorities denied provide the electric connection on ground that an arrear outstanding of electricity dues are pending on the same plot. The Complaint Petition also reveals that prior to the application for electric connection of Complainant and on pending of arrear dues the same shop-room which is situated over same plot were allotted to one Pramod Kumar Lenka vide consumer No. 01934672. The energy bills of Pramod kumar Lenka is enclosed with the complaint petition. In the complaint petition, it is alleged that such denial of electric connection by the Op electricity authorities, are illegal and deficiency in service and caused mental agony to the complaint and forced this complainant to file the present complaint with prayer that a direction may be given to the Ops for providing an electric connection to the shop of the Complainant and to pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for mental agony.
3. Being noticed Op-electricity Company (Op No.1 to 5) appeared through their Ld. Counsel and filed joint written version formally denying the allegations and stated that Ops have not violated the Rules & Regulations of OERC Code-2004. The Joint written version also reveals that an electricity connection is given to one Rabindra Nath Mohanty (Op No.6) the land lord bearing consumer No-01061642, over plot no. 663/1853 and khata no. 497/24 of Mouza-Madhial. On verification it is found that an arrear outstanding of Rs. 7,51,158/- is pending against the consumer till August-2016 and complainant was asked to clear the arrear outstanding of Rabindra Nath Mohanty, land owner to avail the new electricity connection as per Regulation 10(i) of OERC-Code-2004, It is also averred that temporary connection does not any way create a right in favour of applicant for claiming a permanent connection (As per Cl-3.8 of temporary supply) of OERC, Rules and Regualtions-2004. In the circumstances the Complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost.
Upon Notice Rabindra Nath Mohanty (Op-6) appeared and filed written version challenging the imposition of penal amount of RS. 1,28,377/- as assessed by electricity Company. It is also stated that Op-electricity Company violating the section 126(3) and 126(5) of Indian Electricity Act, 2003 has imposed such amount an Op-6 and provisional order dtd. 3/8/2010 issued by the assessing officer is not sustainable in law. The average amount of Op No.6 is supported by the decision of Honbl’e High Court, Calcutta reported on 2006 AIR (SC)1445. Both these citations are filed into the dispute as Annexure 1&3. OpNo.6 also prayed to quash the penalty imposed on Op No.6 by the Op-electricity Company.
4. Heard the submissions advanced by Ld. Counsel for Op-electricity Company (OP No.1 to 5) and case of the Complainant and Op No.6 on merit as non-appeared on behalf of the Parties. The addmitted facts of the case are that in order to avail an electricity connection for the shop room which is situated over plot no. 663/1853, khata no. 497/24 of Mouza-Madhial .Complainant applied as per the formalities to Op-electricity Company. The electricity connection is denied to the complainant on the ground that the land lord, Rabindra Nath Mohanty has a huge arrear outstandings pending on him.
Now the question before the forum that, whether the denial of electricity connection to the Complainant is in accordance with law or not?
It is the case of the Complainant that inspite of compliance of formalities required for providing a new service connection to his shop room OP-electricity Company did not provide new service connection on the ground that the land lord Rabindra Nath Mohanty(Op-6) has an arrear outstandings pending against him. It is also the case of the Complainant that prior to his application for new electric connection, the Op-electricity Company provided a new service connection to one Pramod Kumar Lenka, bearing consumer No.01934672 on the same plot, though the arrear outstandings were pending in the name of the land lord (Op-6) . In support of his claim Complainant filed attested Xerox copy of monthly energy bill for the month of January-2015 of Pramod Kumar Lenka, consumer No.01934672. On the other hand Op-electricity Company’s sole ground for denial of new connection based on the fact that the land lord Rabindra Nath Mohanty (Op-6) was having an arrear outstanding dues and on its non-clearance and as per the Regulation10(i) of power supply, chapter-III of OERC, Regulations Complainant was not allowed a new service connection. Op- electricity Company filed the attested copy of consumer billing statement of Rabindra Nath Mohanty(landlord) Op No.6 bearing consumer No.01061642. But, surprising enough the Op-electricity Company does not whispered a single sentence or countered the allegations regarding supply of power to Promod Kumar Lenka, as it is specifically pleaded on the Complainant. That apart, this Forum issued a direction to the electricity authorities to file detail documents of Pramod Kumar Lenka, basing on the Petition of the Complainant to appreciate the veracity of the allegation of Complainant, but the Ops did not comply the order reason best known to them. It appears from the consumer billing statement of Rabindra Nath Mohanty(Op-6) the land lord that an amount of Rs. 1,28,637/- has been imposed on July-2010 excluding the other outstandings, but the monthly energy bills of Pramod Kumar Lenka, consumer No. 01934672 reflect that he enjoys the power supply till January-2015 as alleged by the Complainant. On non-submission of documents of Pramod Kumar Lenka by the Op-electricity authority even an the direction of this Forum strengthen the plea of the Complainant that, prior to his application for new service connection, the ex-tenants Pramod kumar Lenka was availing the power supply as bonafide consumer inspite of the pending arrear dues against the land lord Rabindra Nath Mohanty over the same plot and same premises for which the Complainant applied for a new connection and denied by the Op-electricity Company for aforesaid reasons. It is further implied that non-furnishing of documents of Pramod kumar Lenka, creates serious doubts in the integrity and official functioning of Op-electricity authority which would expose the illegally committed in providing new electric connection to Pramod kumar Lenka and denying of electric connection to complainant on the same plot and in same situation.
Apart from the above factual aspect of the case, what is the position of law involved in the dispute? Op-electricity Company relying on the Regulations 10(i) of OERC Code-2004 in chapter-III of power supply denied the new service connection to Complainant as arrear is pending on the land lord (Op-6). The Regulation 10(i) as follows:-
- If the applicant in respect of an earlier agreement executed in his/her
name or in the name of his spouse, parents or in the name of a firm or company with which he/she was associated either as a partner, director or managing director, is in arrears of electricity dues or other dues for the same premises payable to the licensee, the application for supply shall not be allowed by the engineer until the arrear are paid in full.
In the case in hand admittedly, Complainant is an applicant for new service connection in the capacity of ‘tenant’ over plot no. 663/1853, khata no.497/24 of Mouza-Madhial and recorded owner of the plot is Rabindra Nath Mohanty(Op no.6) against whom an arrear is pending. On close analysis of the Regulation 10(i) of OERC-Code-2004 no where it debars a tenant to avail the power supply, if an arrear is pending on the landlord. As per the Regulation 10(i) the complainant-applicant had earlier neither executed any agreement with Op-electricity authority nor in the name of his spouse, parents or in the name of any firm etc. where he/she is associated for the same premises where electricity dues is payable to the licenses as revealed from the written statement of Op-electricity authority. It is crystal clear that Complainant needs a new electric connection to his shop room where neither electricity dues are pending nor Complainant is a person defined in the said Regulation of OERC-Code, though an arrear is pending on the land-lord, which no way snatch the legal rights of the Complainant to avail a new electric connection.
So far the written version of the Op no.6 is concerned, where in the procedures of assessment and collection of arrear dues are challenged U/S 126(3) and (5) of I.E.Act-2003, we, are of unanimous view that no relief can be granted by this Forum relating to the grievance of Op No.6. The Op-6 may agitated these question as per the law. Equally, the Op-electricity Company are at liberty to recover the arrear dues as per the Regulations of the OERC-Code-2004.
During pendency of this Complaint, a Misc case was bearing No. I.A.37/15 where a direction was given to Op-electricity Company to provide a temporary connection to Complainant on compliance of other formalities. Ops filed a show cause praying for modification of interim order dtd. 30/11/15. While disposing the I.A. misc case, this Forum opined to consider the objection on final hearing of C.C. case and further directed the Op-electricity Company to continue the power supply to the Complainant’s shop room. In this regard, we are of the opinion that the Complaint has been disposed of on merit along with our observations.
Having observations reflected above, it is directed that Op-electricity-Company considering the application of Complainant for a new connection will provide the new electric connection to the existing shop room of Complainant on completion of the official formalities. The order is to be carried out within one month of receipt of this order, failing which action will be initiated against the parties for non-compliance of order as per provisions of C.P.Act, 1986. It is further directed that till the compliance of the order, the Ops will continue the power supply on temporary basis.
Complaint is allowed in part without cost.
Pronounced in the open Court, this 4th day of August,2017.
