Hon’ble Mr. Ajeya Matilal, Presiding Member
The Appellant/Opposite Party challenged the order dt.28.04.2022 passed by DCDRC, Baruipur, South 24 Pgs. in CC/35/2021 allowing the Complaint Case on contest and directing the appellants to provide electric connection (domestic urban) at the Advocate’s chamber of the Complainant at premises No. N.T.S. Road, Subhash Gram, Chowk Harinavi, PS. Sonarpur, Kolkata - 700147 within 60 days from the order and also directing the Opposite Parties to pay cost of Rs.10,000/- and compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the Complainant/Respondent.
The fact of the complaint cast is in shot like that the Complainant is a practising lawyer. The OP No.1 is the Station Manager of WBSEDCL, Rajpur CC3115500 under Sonarpur P.S. and the OP No. 2 is Chairman of WBSEDCL.
On 22.06.2019 the Complainant through online applied for a new electric connection (domestic) for his chamber vide application no.1005081225, but due to some unknown reasons, the quotation was not shown. So, the Complainant submitted a second application for a new electric (domestic) connection for his chamber on 25.06.2019 vide application No. 1005087744 having a specific ID No. and total quotation was for Rs.2162/-, which has been paid through online vide transaction ID QUCO7685432455 dt.25.06.2019. The Complainants’ dwelling house/flat was on the first floor of the building and the Advocate’s chamber was on the ground floor at the outer side of the building, but under separate construction. The Complainants’ further case is that he did not run his chamber on the first floor of the house. On 03.07.2019 the Station Manager, WBSEDCL informed the Complainant that there was an existing connection in his name at the premises. So, new connection could not be provided in the same building in the same category.
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order, the Complainant filed a writ petition vide no. WP 19 613(W) of 2019, but as the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant on the date of hearing remained absent, the said writ petition was dismissed for non prosecution. On 03.02.2021 after period of lock down due to Covid 19 the Complainant sent a letter to the OP No.1 for installing new electric connection (domestic) in his chamber in the given address. But after a lapse of 1 year 8 months 15 days and payment of the quotation amount, the OPs intentionally neglected, avoided and refused to install the electric connection. So, the complainant sent a legal notice on 04.03.2021 through online to the OP No.1 and on 09.03.2021. The Complainant contacted the Station Manager, Rajpur CCC, WBSEDCL and came to know that the prayer of the complainant has been sent to the higher authority for the approval. In spite of full payment, the OP neglected and wilfully avoided to install the electric connection. So, the Complainant filed this case for installation of new electric connection alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
The OPs contested the case by filing a Written Version denying the material allegations of the claim petition along with the technical pleas. It is admitted by the OP that the Complainant filed an application through online for a new connection vide application No. 1005081225 dt. 22.06.2019 at the aforesaid premises. The Complainant personally visited the office of the OP No. 1 with a hard copy of the application. The OP No.1 after making scrutiny of the official documents said that there was existence of a domestic connection in the name of the Complainant having consumer Id No. 104245459 at the same premises. The matter was informed to the Complainant vide letter dt. 24.06.2019 and the OPs expressed their inability to entertain the said application dt. 22.06.2019 in terms of WBSEDCL Regulation No.14 of the notification no. 53/WBSEDCL dt. 02.04.2013 and Regulation No. 13.9 of the notification no. 46/WBSEDCL dt. 31.05.2020.
The Complainant thereafter approached to the OP no.1 and abused him in a filthy language and threatened him with dire consequences. The OPs vide letter dt. 24.06.2019 informed the Complainant about their inability to entertain the application. So, over the issue OP No.1 lodged a G.D.E. with Sonarpur P.S. on 26.04.2019. Thereafter the Complainant made another application through online on 25.06.2019 being no. 1005087744 without disclosing about the existence of service connection in his name in the same holding. But in ordinary course of business in respect of each and every application made through online for new connection, a quotation bill as per demanded load, is generated automatically and the matter is informed to the Applicant immediately through online. A computerised quotation bill was generated in favour of the Complainant on 25.06.2019 and on 25.06.2019 the Complainant paid Rs.2162/- as bill amount suppressing the fact. In terms of the second application of the Complainant the OPs made an inspection of the said premises on 03.07.2015 in presence of the Complainant and the OPs concluded that new connection would not be provided due to existence of supply of service line in the name of the Complainant in respect of the same holding and the said information was duly communicated to the Complainant on 03.07.2019. The Complainant initiated a criminal Complaint Case before the Ld. A.C.J.M, Baruipur being no. 624 2019 implicating the officials of WBSEDCL on false and fictitious grounds on and from 22.06.2019. The Complainant gave threatening calls to the OPs over telephone. So, the OPs lodged a complaint on 24.07.2019 with the O.C, Sonarpur P.S. against the Complainant and requested the police authority to treat the complaint as FIR. Accordingly, FIR 627 2019 dt. 24.07.2019 was lodged. On 31.07.19 The OPs held an inspection out of their good gesture and found that there was existence of an electric meter in the name of the complaint being Consumer ID 104245459 and meter no. 105097886 being installed/fixed on the wall of the temporarily constructed chamber and for that reason the OPs expressed their inability to consider the application of the complainant. The OPs tried to accommodate the Complainant and requested the Complainant to furnish some documents. But the Complainant wilfully refused to do the same with malafide intension. So, the OPs prayed for dismissal of the Complaint Case.
For proper adjudication of the disputes between the parties following point s were framed:
- Is the case maintainable in its present from and in the eye of law?
- Is there any cause of action for filing the case by the Complainant?
- Whether the Complainant is a consumer in the eye of law?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get an electric connection in his advocate’s chamber or not?
- What are the reliefs or remedies the complainant is entitled to get in this case?
The complainant adduced evidence and was cross examined by the OPs. The OPs also adduced their evidence by way of affidavit and one Malabika Sen adduced the evidence on behalf the OPs and she was cross examined. The Ld. Trial Forum decided the case in favour of the complainant answering all the points in affirmative.
Now, the question involved is that whether the impugned judgement suffers from any illegality.
It is argued by the Ld. Advocate for the Appellants that the Complainant made an unauthorised construction. So, the Appellants asked for sanctioned plan etc. in respect of the said construction. But the Respondent/Complainant did not submit the same to the Appellant. The Ld. Advocate for the Respondent/Complainant referred to the decision of Calcutta High Court passed in WPO 18367 of 2019 (Arup Sarkar vs. CESC Ltd. and others) dt. 11.02.2020, where the Hon’ble High Court was pleased to direct the CESC Ltd. to provide with a new electric connection to the petitioner under the category of domestic urban within two weeks.
In the paragraph no. 16 of the said judgement it is observed, “In the present case, the space in the ground floor has been taken by the petitioner as an extension of his residence for the use of the space as his legal chamber. The above factual matrix is clearly distinguishable from law firms and proprietorship firms that are having offices in commercial spaces dealing with litigation and non-litigation work. The chambers of a litigation lawyer are clearly used for his livelihood, and accordingly, the benefit of doubt is required to be given to such a petitioner placing him in the category of the “Domestic (Urban)”. So, it is clear that the electric connection for a lawyer for his chamber at the ground floor of his residence will fall under the category of domestic (urban).
In the paragraph 15 of the said judgement it is observed, “Upon a reading of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shiv Narayan (Supra) it is crystal clear that the legal profession would fall under the category of “nondomestic”. However, falling under the category of “non-domestic” would not automatically make the use “commercial”.
In WPA No. 12284 of 2021 (Tanuja Bibi vs. CESC and others) in the Order dt. 13.08.2011 it is observed”, “A person in settled possession is entitled to electric supply. Admittedly, the husband of the petitioner is in possession of the immovable property. As the wife of such husband, the petitioner is also in settled possession of the immovable property. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to electric supply at the premises concerned. CESC Authorities agreeable to provide electricity supply to the petitioner.”
The Ld. Forum below observed, “On the background of the above noted admitted facts, this District Commission after examining the pleading of the parties and evidence on record finds that the OP has adapted the plea that there is chance of splitting of load on this issue Regulation 14 of Notification No. 53/W.B.S.E.D.C.L. dt. 02.04.2013 has been pointed out.
Rule 14 of the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission published in Kolkata gazette on 02.04.2013 runs like that:
“14. Effect of splitting of load:
If any applicant/intending consumer/consumer submits any application for new connection(s) with the intention of splitting the load to obtain the benefit of lower charge or furnishes wrong/inaccurate/false statements, his application would be liable to be rejected under the provision of the Act, or the regulations made thereunder, and 25% of payments/deposits if already made by him by way of charges for obtaining new connection in terms of these regulations, shall be forfeited by the distribution licensee before the rest of the charges is refunded to him. While rejecting the application the consumer /intending consumer is to be intimated in writing about the ground for rejection. It will be the onus of the applicant to prove that the application for new connection is not for the purpose of splitting the load. Any dispute in this regard is to be settled in the Office of the Ombudsman.”
The Ld. Advocate for the respondent submitted that even a trespasser unless evicted by due process of law is entitled to get electricity.
In this context, he referred the case of Sukla Kar. In WPA No.10534 of 2020 (Sukla Kar vs. CESC Ltd. and others) decided on 24.12.2020 by the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta in the paragraph 2 of the said Judgement, wherein the Hon’ble High Court observed, “2. On behalf of CESC, is submitted that there is already an existing service main at the said premises. No new service main can be provided at the said premises. The petitioner can be provided with a new meter and a new connection through the same from the existing main service. CESC is ready and willing to install a new meter and give the new connection to the petitioner from the existing main, provided the petitioner makes a fresh application for a new meter and a new connection, since the petitioner’s previous application has already been rejected. The new connection is also subject to the petitioner bearing all costs and expenses for the new meter and the new connection.”
But it appears that in the present case the Respondent prayed for a new connection. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the aforesaid decision is not applicable within facts and circumstances of the case.
The Ld. Advocate for the appellant referred to a decision of Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta in WP No.19186 (W) 2018 decided on 05.04.2013, wherein the Hon’ble High Court observed, “In addition to the above, they have also found a particular meter no.3801010 and consumer no.1001802604 standing in the name of one Rajnish Kumar Shaw through whom the petitioner and her husband was enjoying electricity.
The Distribution Company further submits that granting electricity connection to the petitioner shall amount to load splitting. The Court is of the view that if the petitioner can demonstrate that she is an independent tenant within the said premises, she may be entitled to an independent electricity connection.
In view of the matter, the petitioner will approach the C.G.R.O. concerned within a period of three days from the date whereby the said C.G.R.O. after giving due hearing to the petitioner and the Distribution Company shall pass a reasoned order as to whether the petitioner’s case for independent meter would amount to load splitting or not.”
The fact of the present case remains that the chamber of the Respondent/Complainant is on the ground floor and he lives in a storied building. His chamber is at the ground floor. And his meter box is also at the ground floor. The Ld. Advocate for the appellant referred to a decision of NCDRC in First Appeal No. 785 in CC No. 2015 in Complaint No.134 of 2013 D/d. 31.01.2018. It appears from the paragraph 5 of the aforesaid judgement, “There was already an electricity connection existing in the name of Rintu Roy, brother of the complainant. Since 09.08.1974, as per the Electricity Distribution Laws, Rule 14 of WBERC Regulation Notification No. 13/WBERC dated 02.04.2013, two simultaneous connections at the same premises are impermissible as it amounts to splitting of load. The complainant himself was failed to provide documents or details of his partitioned ownership of the premises for which he sought electricity connection”.
It is not disputed by the respondent that he applied for electric connection in respect of the self same premises, wherein there exists another service connection in his name.
The decision of the Calcutta High Court in W.P. No.15088(W) of 2010 D/d.21.07.2010 was reefed by Appellant. It appears from para 5 of the said judgement, “Sub-sections (6) and (7) of Section 42 of the Electricity Act, 2003 provide that any consumer, who is aggrieved by non-redressal of his grievances under Sub-section (5) of Section 42, may make a representation for the redressal of his grievances to an authority to be known as Ombudsman to be appointed or designated by the State Commission; and that the Ombudsman shall settle the grievance of the consumer within such time and in such manner as may be specified by the State Commission. Sub-section (5) of Section 42 provides that every distribution licensee shall, within six months from the appointed date or date of grant of licence, whichever is earlier, establish a forum for redressal of grievances of the consumers in accordance with the guidelines as may be specified by the State Commission.”
It is decided in WPA 11500 of 2020 decided by the Honble High Court on 15.01.2021,
“In clause 14 of the said regulation, it is clear that in case of any dispute as to reduction or splitting of loads in the event of a new connection is sought for, the same has to be settled in the office of the Ombudsman.”
In view of the aforesaid discussion along with the factual scenario of the case and the position of law cited above, we are of the opinion the matter should be referred to the Ombudsman for redressal of grievances of the Respondent.
For the aforementioned reasons, the impugned judgement cannot be sustained and it should be set aside.
Accordingly, the Appeal is allowed. The impugned judgement is set aside. The Respondent is at liberty to approach before the C.G.R.O. or G.R.O. or the Ombudsman concerned within 30 days from this Order for redressal of his grievances. The Ombudsman concerned will dispose of the matter as early as possible after being approached by the Respondent in accordance with Law and Rules. The interim order of stay in connection with this Appeal stands vacated.
Let a copy of this order be sent to DCDRC, Baruipur, South 24 Parganas for information and necessary action.
