Date of Filing – 18.02.2016

Date of Hearing – 20.03.2017

            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 Judgement/Final Order dated 18.01.2016 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, North 24 Parganas at Barasat (for short, Ld. District Forum) in Consumer Complaint no. 432/2015.  By the impugned order, the Ld. District Forum allowed the complaint on contest with direction upon the opposite parties/appellants – (a) to give electric connection to the shop room of the complainant/respondent situated at 34/2, K.B. Basu Road, Barasat, Kolkata -700124, Dist- North 24 Parganas within 40 days from the date of order failing which the appellants shall have to pay a sum of Rs.100/- per day as punitive damages.

          The respondent herein being complainant lodged the complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the Ld. District Forum stating that he carries on business of jewellery shop under the name and style M/s. Omkar Jewellery for his livelihood to maintain his family.  For smooth running of his business, he has applied for electric connection and being satisfied OP no.2 has received Rs.1,019/- as security deposit amount as well as service connection on 29.08.2014.  On 11.09.2014, however, the OP no.2 refused to give connection.  The complainant approached the OPs expressing his discomfort to run the business in absence of electricity but all the requests and persuasions including legal notice to the OP no.2 dated 26.05.2015 went in vain.  Hence, the respondent approached the Ld. District Forum with prayer for certain reliefs, viz. – (a) to direct the OPs to give electric connection in the shop room situated at 34/2, K.B. Basu Road, Barasat; (b) to direct the OPs to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/-; (c) to pay litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.

          The appellants being opposite parties by filing a joint written version have stated that the premises in question is a commercial-cum-residential multi-storied building and as per rules, in a multi-storied building on the application of promoter/owner electric connection is given from common meter and after installation of transformer, individual connection will be given.  The OPs have stated that the complainant has suppressed the fact that the premises is a commercial-cum-residential multi-storied complex where there is no scope to get any service connection without installation of transformer.

          After assessing the materials on record, the Ld. District Forum by the impugned final order allowed the complaint with the direction upon the opposite parties as indicated above.  Being aggrieved by that Judgement/Final Order, the opposite parties have come up in this Commission with the present appeal.

          Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant has submitted that as per the rules as mentioned in West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission, the WBSEDCL/appellant cannot provide any individual separate line in case of multi-storied building where a common meter to be installed by erecting a transformer as per demand of load.  Ld. Advocate for the appellants has submitted that the appellant company cannot violate its own rules and regulations and also policy decision by providing a separate individual electric line to the respondent in the premises concerned which relates to multi-storied building and the Ld. District Forum ignoring the said facts and the rules has passed the order impugned which should be set aside.

          Per contra, Ld. Advocate for the respondent has submitted that the respondent is running a business of jewellery shop by means of self-employment to provide himself and for livelihood of his family members and in absence of electric connection, the appellant has been facing serious inconveniences.   He has further contended that being a consumer, the respondent should not be deprived of having electric connection in accordance with the legislative mandate as per provisions of Sections 42 & 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003.  To fortify his submission, Ld. Advocate for the appellant has placed before me the guideline of procedures for effective service connection in Low Voltage and Medium Voltage (LV & MV) for construction purpose and/or common services to housing/commercial complex and a booklet for new connection under WBSEDCL procedures – A (2010) and submitted that there is no such provision which indicates that in a multi-storied building, no individual electric connection can be given.  Referring to the provisions of Sections 42 & 43 of the Electricity Act and also drawing attention to several decisions in this regard, he has submitted that the WBSEDCL being licensing authority is under obligation to provide electric connection in no time and if the order passed by the Ld. District Forum is not complied with, it would be violative of legislative command and, therefore, the impugned order should not be interfered with.

          I have considered the rival contention of the parties. 

          Admittedly, the complainant is running his jewellery shop in a multi-storied residential-cum-commercial complex lying and situated at Premises No. 34/2, K.B. Basu Road, Barasat, Kolkata -700124, Dist- North 24 Parganas.  In order to obtain electric connection in his jewellery shop, the respondent had applied for service connection to the appellant no.2 i.e. the Station Manager, Barasat GES of WBSEDCL and on 29.08.2014 the appellant no.2 had received Rs. 1,019/- from the respondent on account of service connection as well as security deposit for installation of such electricity.  However, on 11.09.2014, the appellant no.2 sent a letter to the respondent stating that after construction of common meter, necessary action will be taken as it is a multi-storied building.

          The Ld. Advocate for the appellant has submitted that as per rules it is not possible to provide any individual separate line in a multi-storied building but Ld. Advocate for the appellant has failed to show any such regulations or rules framed by the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission to that effect.  On the other hand, on going through the procedures for effecting service connection of LV & MV for construction purpose and/or common services to housing/commercial complex i.e. WBSEDCL procedures –B(2010), I do not find any such embargo.  Under rule 1.3 of the said procedures, it has been provided that henceforth all the new connections on LV & MV supply shall be provided upto the contract demand not exceeding 125 KVA.  The effective date of coming into force of the procedures shall be 15.01.2011 and the applicable tariff for construction purpose and/or common services as detailed in procedures have been spell out therein.  Unless there is any specific provisions in this regard and unless it is manifested from the form of new connection, the appellant being licensing authority cannot absolve its responsibility towards the respondent. 

          Under Section 43 of the Electricity Act, an occupier of the premises is entitled to for electricity supply in his name, if the owner refused to take connection in his name.  Under the provision of said Section, it is the duty of every of licensing authority to give supply of electricity to the owner or occupier of any premises in question.  Section 43(2) of the said Act makes it clear that it shall be the duty of every distribution licensee to provide, if required electric plan or electric line for giving electric supply to the premises specified in Section 43(1). 

          It is evident that the respondent applied for getting independent electric connection and for that purpose he has deposited the amount as per quotation of the appellants and thus he is entitled to get such connection irrespective of the action taken by the land owner or promoter whatever it may be and the said right of the respondent is a statutory right.  In a decision reported in (2012) 1 WBLR (SC) 212 (Chandu Khamaru – vs. – Nayan Malik & Ors.) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that in view of Sections 42 & 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003, a distribution licensee had a statutory duty to supply electricity to the owner or an occupier of any premises located in the area of the distribution licensee if any owner or an occupier of that premises applied for the same.  It was so as an owner or an occupier of such premises had a statutory right to apply for an obtain such electric supply from the distribution licensee.  As Section 67 of the above Act made provisions for placing electric lines, electric plan and other works for supply of electricity, the concerned distribution licensee should find out whether there was any other way through which electric line could be drawn.

          The appellants herein have miserably failed to show that there is any specific provision that in a multi-storied building of housing-cum-commercial complex, the LV or MV supply of power cannot be obtained unless a transformer is installed by the owner/developer of the said multi-storied building.

          Admittedly, the respondent is running his jewellery business from the premises no.34/2, K.B. Basu Road, Barasat.  He has made an application for installation of electricity and certainly after inspection an assessment was made to pay Rs.1,019/- and in accordance with that quotation, on 29.08.2014 the respondent has deposited the said amount with the appellant no.2 for security deposit as well as service connection.  The Ld. District Forum has rightly observed that when the OP no.2 has taken money from the complainant for supply electricity, it can be presumed that after enquiry OP no.2 has asked for quotation and taken the said money from the complainant.  The Ld. District Forum has rightly observed that the appellants have failed to show any rules and regulations that the complainant/respondent is not entitled to get any individual electric connection as it is situated in a multi-storied building.

          Therefore, after giving due consideration to the submission advanced by the Ld. Advocates appearing for the parties, this Commission finds that the appeal is devoid of any merit and as such it is liable to be dismissed.  However, the Ld. District Forum had no reason to impose an amount of Rs.100/- per day as punitive damages as there was no such averment in the petition of complaint or any prayer clause in the said petition of complaint.  In fact, when there is no averment to that effect, certainly the appellant did not get opportunity to controvert the same.  In such a situation, if any order is passed on the count of punitive damages, it would certainly cause harm to the appellants since fair procedure is the hall mark of natural justice.  Considering the same, the imposition of punitive damages of Rs.100/- per day should be set aside.

          In view of the above, the instant appeal is dismissed on contest. There will be, however, no order as to costs.

          The impugned judgement/final order is hereby affirmed with a modification that the OPs/appellants shall have no obligation to pay punitive damages of Rs.100/- per day as imposed by the Ld. District Forum.

          The Registrar of the Commission is directed to send a copy of this order to the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, North 24 Parganas at Barasat for information.