Date of Filing – 03.11.2015

Date of Hearing – 08.03.2017

         The instant appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) is at the behest of the Opposite Parties to impeach the Final Order dated 21.08.2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Purba Medinipur at Tamluk (for short, Ld. District Forum) in Consumer Complaint no. 31/2015.  By its order, Ld. District Forum allowed the consumer complaint initiated by the respondent Sri Anil Baran Pradhan under Section 12 of the Act with the direction upon the appellants to install electric connection in the respondent’s dwelling house within 40 days from the date of order, to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.3,000/-.

          The respondent herein being Complainant lodged the complaint asserting that he is a permanent resident of Plot No.76, RS Khatian No.197 at Mouja-Dalbarh, P.S.- Bhagwanpur, Dist- Purba Medinipur.  In order to install electric connection in his dwelling house, the complainant filed an application on 19.10.2012 and thereafter as per quotation dated 24.11.2014, he deposited Rs.200/- on 28.11.2014.  However, the electric connection was not provided to him for which the respondent approached the Ld. District Forum with prayer for directions upon the opposite parties/appellants to provide electric connection, to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.3,000/-.

          The appellant no. 1 i.e. the Station Manager, Bhawanpur GES of WBSEDCL by being OP no. 1 by filing a written version has stated that they tried two times to give connection but due to stiff resistance from the local villagers and the applicant, the connection could not be effected.

          After assessing the materials on record, the Ld. District Forum by the impugned final order allowed the complaint with certain directions upon the opposite parties as mentioned above.  Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, the OPs have come up in this Commission with the present appeal.

          Mr. Alok Mukhopadhyay, Ld. Advocate for the appellant has submitted that the appellants being distribution licensee tried their level best to provide new connection in favour of the respondent but failed due to stiff resistance given by the neighbours and further failure on the part of the respondent to arrange free way leave.  Ld. Advocate for the appellant has also submitted that there was no deficiency in services on the part of them and as such the impugned order should be set aside.

          Ld. Advocate for the respondent, on the other hand has contended that in view of the provisions of Section 43 of the Electricity Act, the appellants are duty bound to provide electric connection to the respondent who is co-sharer in respect of the dwelling house where the electric connection would be provided and as such the Ld. District Forum has rightly passed the order which should not be interfered with.

          I have considered the submission advanced by the Ld. Advocates appearing for the parties.  The provisions of Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is the main provision casting an obligation upon every distribution licensee to give supply of electricity to the premises when the application by the owner or occupier of such premises is made and Sub Section (1) of Section 43 of the said Act enjoins upon the distribution licensee to give such supply of electricity to the owner or occupier of the premises, as the case may be, within one month after receipt of the application requiring such supply.  Therefore, the only point has to be looked into whether the Complainant is an occupant of the premises or not.  The materials on record goes to show that the respondent if not exclusive owner of the property still holds the property as co-owner.  Therefore, being an occupant of the dwelling house, there cannot be any dispute that the respondent is entitled to electric connection. 

          The submission with regard to stiff resistance by the co-sharers or neighbours could not inspire me.  The observation of the Ld. District Forum appears to be a reasoned one.  The relevant portion of the impugned order is noted below –

          “However, there is no evidence from the side of the OPs that they/their authroised agencies encountered any stumbling block in effecting service connection to the dwelling house of the petitioner.  No one from the neighbourhood or local people has come forward before us to corroborate such fact.  Moreover, the loss sufficiently empowers the OPs to take appropriate legal action against agitators.  Moreover, in so far as the OPs have received requisite money from the petitioner, they cannot renege on their contractual obligations in such fashions.  There is nothing on record to show that any FIR has been lodged by the OPs against the person(s) concerned, who allegedly prevented the authorised agency to effect service connection to the dwelling house of the petitioner”.

          The above observation is a sound one which does not require any further discussion by the appellate authority keeping in view the object behind enactment of the provision of Section 43 of the Electricity Act.  The appellants without having any valid reason has preferred this appeal and as such the appeal should be dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/-.

         Consequently, the appeal is dismissed on contest with cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid by the appellants to the respondent/complainant of the case.

          The impugned order is hereby affirmed.

         The Registrar of the Commission is directed to send a copy of this order to the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Purba Medinipur at Tamluk for information.