SRI BIJAYA KUMAR DAS,PRESIDENT:-
Deficiency in service in respect of not providing new electric connection under BPL category are the allegations arrayed against Ops.
2. Complaint in brief reveals that complainant is a permanent inhabitant of the address mentioned in the cause title of the complainant and comes under BPL category, bearing BPL Card No.54 and PDS Card No.170419102731. Complainant, in order to avail electricity to his residence applied before OP No.2,Junior Engineer,CESU,Pattamaundai Division on Plot No.957/2039, Khata No.734/2, Mouza-Keshapur and the ROR is published in the name of the complainant and one Kamadev Pradhan,S/o:- Brindaban Pradhan. It is alleged that OP No.1,Malati Pradhan being a litigant lady has foisted a Civil Suit before Civil Judge,Senior Division,Kendrapara bearing C.S.No.253/2001 and I.A.Misc.Case No.108/06. The Ld. Civil Judge has dismissed the Civil Suit and passed an order to maintain ‘status quo’ in respect of the suit land. It is further alleged that OP No.1 has no right, title and interest over the suit plot and she is residing in the western side of the suit plot and creating a types of disturbances. It is also alleged that OP No.1 in collision with OP No.2 and 3 is making hindrances to provide the new electric connection to the complainant. Complaint also reveals that inspite of deposit of required documents and fees OP N o.2 & 3 are adopting dilatory tactics to provide new connection under BPL category, for which the complaint before the Forum with prayer that a direction may be given to OP-Electricity authority to provide new service connection under BPL category and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for loss.
3. Being noticed OP No.1, Malati Pradhan appeared through her Ld. Counsel and filed written statement into the dispute. OP No.1, in her written version averred that complaint is not maintainable before this Forum and the effective adjudication lies with the Civil Court only and the Civil Court is competent enough to decide the title and possession, and if any order is passed to connect the electrical line the OP No.1 will be prejudiced under the circumstances OP No.1 seek dismissal of the complaint.
Junior Engineer,CESU,Pattamundai Division,Section-3(OP No.2) and Junior Engineer,Enzen Global Solutions Pvt.Ltd,.,Pattamundai appeared through their Ld. Counsel, Mr. P.K.Samal and Associates and filed joint written version formally challenging the maintainability of the complaint and on joint written version it is averred that OP No.1 protested the Junior Manager(OP No.3), when the electric line was drawn over her plot and placed relevant documents showing that a civil dispute is pending sub-judice before Hon’ble Court of District Judge,Kendrapara. It is also averred that the OP No.2 & 3 have no objection to provide electricity connection if complainant provides a litigation free way leave as per (Regulation-8 of the OERC(Rules and Regulations). It is further averred that, OP No.3, can not provide power supply under BPL category, unless same is directed by the CESU, authorities as no BPL Kit supply to the complainant. Accordingly, the complainant is not entitle to any relief sought for in the complaint petition same is to be dismissed with cost.
4. Heard the arguments advanced by Ld. Counsel for complainant and Ld. Counsel for OP No.2 & 3 and case of the oP No.1 on merit, gone through the complaint petition and written statement filed by the parties. Complainant also filed Xerox copies of documents as relied on the complaint petition. The admitted facts of the case are that complainant to avail a new electric connection applied as per the norms before the OP-electricity authorities, but till date no electric connection is given to the complainant. The reasons stated by OP-electricity authorities are that as OP No.1,Malati Pradhan protested before the officer of the OP-Company, while drawing the electric connection over her plot and produced the documents against the complainant that a civil dispute is pending sub judice before Hon’ble Dist.Judge,Kendrapara with further averment that, if complainant provides a litigation of free way leave as per the provisions of OERC Rules and regulations OP-electricity authorities are ready to provide new service connection and to supply power under BPL category scheme, the powers of connection in the instant category specifically lies with the CESU authorities. OP No.1,Malati Pradhan in her written version only challenges the maintainability of the complaint without disclosing the details of pending of any Civil suit against the complainant filed by OP No.1. On pendency of Civil suit, at this stage neither OP No.1 & 2 & 3 filed any supportive documents in their favour, rather in the complaint petition, it is stated that a Civil suit bearing No.252/2001 and I.A/No.108/2006 was filed between complainant and oP No.1 and same has been disposed of with order to maintain status quo. Like the Ops, complainant also does not file any copy of the order related to Civil Suit No.252/2001. Complainant to substantiate his case filed a photo copy of ROR bearing Khatian No.734/2 of Mouza-Kesharpur,Tahasil-Pattamundai and the ROR is recorded in the name of one Kamdev Pradhan, Haladhar Pradhan,S/o:- Brindaban Pradhan having 2 nos. of plots, where over Plot No.957/2039 complainant wants to take electric connection, which is also reflected from the copy of the affidavit of Haladhar Pradhan and another affidavit of co-sharer Kamadev Pradhan, who declares that the property has been mutually partitioned and said Kamadev Pradhan has no objection, if a new service of electric connection is provided. None of the parties involved in the dispute has disclosed the details about pending of Civil Suit and any order passed in that effect,OP No.1, Malati Pradhan filed a copy of the judgement in Civil suit No.252/2001 alongwith a written notes on argument after completion of the argument and prior to pronouncement of the order. The facts of pending of an appeal before Dist.Judge,Kendrapara which are not pleaded in her written statement, hence in absence of the pleadings, it lacks weight-age in process of adjudication. In these circumstances, if for the shake of argument, it is presumed that a Civil suit is pending to decide the right, title, interest of parties, can complainant like consumer will be denied a new service connection as a party to the suit ? if he complies the other provisions required for availing a new service connection.
As per our previous observations, it is clear that No document is produced by the Ops that complainant is not a lawful occupier, when complainant possess the ROR which is recorded in his name. with other co-sharers. It is also the position of law that Foras can not decide the right, title, interest and possession and the disputes are civil in nature and to decide the same the powers are vested with the civil court. In our opinion, if the facts of the dispute are similar in nature, which is pending before a civil dispute for its adjudication, then the Forum lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the same. But in the case in hand, the Ops have categorically states that there is a civil dispute, if any pending regarding decision for right, title, interest and possession. No where the Ops states that the dispute of ‘electric connection’ is a part of the pending civil suit. In the present days ‘electricity’ is a bare necessity of human life and same can not be denied without any justified reasons and the complaint, which relates to grievance of the consumer to avail ‘electricity’ under the law is to be decided by this Forum. Orissa Electricity regulatory commissions ‘in short’ OERC-Regulations-2004 ( as amended upto May,2011) in chapter-III of ‘power supply’ determines certain conditions to provide new electricity connections. Regulation-5 of the OERC-Code reveals that ‘ xxxxx the licensee may grant connection to the premises of any applicant, and the licensee’s engineer may dispense with the documentary evidence of lawful occupation of the premises is dispensed with, any documentary evidence regarding electricity connection or payment of bills raised by the licensee for consumption of electricity will not constitute evidence for the purpose of lawful occupation of the premises in any municipal record, revenue record, or any court of law.”
OERC defines the word ‘occupier’ means the owner or person in occupation of the premises, where energy is used or proposed to be used. In the case in hand, considering the status of complainant in connection to pending of Civil suit in respect of the disputed plot may not be treated as a ‘owner’ but there is no legal bar to treat the complainant as an ‘occupier’ as defines in OERC-Code. Further, the Regulations-5 of the Chapter-III of OERC clearly defines that “ xxxx
any documentary evidence regarding electricity connection or payment of bills raised by the licensee for consumption of electricity will not constitute evidence for the purpose of lawful occupation of the premises in any municipal recod, revenue record or any cost of law”.
On analyzing the said provision of OERC, we, are of the opinion that there is no legal barrior before the OP-Electricity authorities to provide a new service connection, and so far the grievance of OP No.1, Malati Pradhan is concerned regarding pendency of civil suit over the disputed plot expecting to be prejudice, if the new electric connection is effected but as per suit plot, the provisions of OERC on Regulation-5 of ‘Power supply” if a new electric connection is given it no way creates an evidence in support or against any parties.
OP-electricity authorities in their written statement, averred that if complainant provides a ‘litigation free way-leave, OP No.2 & 3 are ready to provide new service connection, as per the written statement of OP-electricity authorities, this Forum is not sure, whether there is any dispute in connection to way-leave, no document is produced before this Forum that, the new service connection to the complainant’s premises crosses over the suit plot of OP No.1, Malati Pradhan. On regulation – 8 of the OERC of power supply, it is the duty of the intending consumer to provide way-leave to the license for drawal of service connection. Hence, complainant has to provide a litigation free way-leave to the OP No.2 & 3 for his new service connection.
In the complaint it is alleged and prayed that though complainant is a BPL card holder and he is entitle to avail a new service connection under BPL scheme. Complainant to support his version, filed a copy of the BPL card issued by Deptt. of FS & CW, Govt. of Odisha. On the otherhand, OP-Enzen Global Solutions Pvt.Ltd. during course of hearing submits that the provisions of providing the new electric connection and the BPL Kits are available with the OP-CESU, authorities(OP No.2). In this regard, we are of the opinion that if the complainant fits himself into the scheme under BPL category for providing a new service connection, the OP No.2, CESU authorities should not hesitate to comply the same.
OP-Electricity authorities filed a petition to modify the order dtd.26.05.17 passed by this Forum, where Rs.100/- was imposed as cost on the Ops for not filing written statement in time. The Ops in the written statement showing different grounds for non-submission of written statement in stipulated period. This Forum opines that Ops filed the written statement after lapse of the statutory period of 45 days, further this forum has no power to review or recall its own order as per the provisions of C.P.Act,1986. Hence, the petition filed by OP-electricity authorities on dtd.9.6.17 is rejected and OP- electricity authorities are directed to pay cost of Rs.100/- to the complainant.
Having observations reflected above, it is directed that on the pending application for new service connection, filed by the complainant before the OP-electricity authorities, the OP-authorities shall take a decision on one month of receipt of this order as per our aforesaid observations, subject to compliance of other formalities/provisions by the complainant as per the guidelines of OP-authorities, failing to carry out the order will initiate proceeding against defaulting parties.
Accordingly, the Complaint is allowed in part on contest against OP No.2 & 3 and on merit against OP No.1, without any cost.
Pronounced in the open Court, this 11th July,2017.
