Sri Kamal De, President

This is a case for getting electric service connection to the shop of the Complainant.

In short, case of the Complainant, is that he applied for electric service connection to his shop/house and on the basis of his application, the OP No. 1 after conducting inspection, agreed to provide service connection to his shop and sent Inspection Report/Quotation bearing Memo No. 2001222756/QUTO/03/243 dated 16-05-2014.  On receipt of quotation from the OP No. 1, the Complainant deposited Rs. 935/- and another Rs. 400/- as security deposit and service connection charge, respectively.  It is stated by the Complainant that on 26-09-2014, he satisfied the OP No. 1 regarding way leave permission by submitting paper of land, land sketch map, no objection, legal heirs certificate and other documents as per requirement of the OPs. It is alleged that despite receipt of requisite charges and documents, the OPs have not taken any step to effect such connection.  Hence, this case. 

Case of the OP No. 1, on the other hand, is that the Complainant applied for commercial connection having capacity of 1.5 KW on 14-03-2014 and accordingly, necessary inspection was carried out on 16-11-2014.  During inspection, it was found that the wining of the commercial premises of the Complainant was under process.  Accordingly, a letter was issued to the Complainant for completion of wining work and submit necessary compliance report.  After completion of necessary wining work at his commercial premises, the Complainant has informed the matter to the OP No. 1 on 06-05-2014.  Subsequently, re-inspection was done by the OP No. 1 on 13-05-2014 and after re-inspection, a quotation was issued to the intending consumer on 19-05-2014 and accordingly, the Complainant deposited the quotation money on 21-05-2014.  So, an enlisted contractor was entrusted with the job to effect service connection to the intended place, but due to strong resistance from the side of one Sri Bhaghat Manna of Vill. Aror, another co-sharer of the said plot, the connection could not be effected within the stipulated period.  So, a letter was issued on 23-05-2014 to the Complainant for submission of necessary way leave for execution of new service connection.  On 13-06-2014, Sri Bhaghat Manna submitted a written objection together with a copy of a status quo order of the Hon’ble Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), 1^st Court at Tamluk against effecting new service connection to the disputed plot of land. In such circumstances, the service connection could not be effected.  It is claimed by this OP that there is/was no intentional laches on its part and as such, the instant case be dismissed.

Point for consideration

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs?
2. Whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief, as sought for?

Decision with reasons

Point Nos. 1&2:

Both these points are taken up together for the sake of convenience of discussion.

During the course of argument, Ld. Advocate for the OP No. 1 assigned two reasons behind its inability to effect the intended service connection to the shop of the Complainant, viz., objection from one Sri Bhaghat Manna and status quo order from a competent Court of Law.  Besides, he also questioned the admissibility of this case before this Forum.

It is also argued by the Ld. Advocate of the OP No. 1 that the disputed plot of land is a commercial bastu land.  In fact, the Complainant has also sought for a commercial connection at his shop/house.  That being the undisputed position of this case, it is argued by the Ld. Advocate, that the instant case is not adjudicable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

At the very outset, let it be clarified in unequivocal terms that “commercial purpose” per se has not been kept out of the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  In terms of Sec. 2(10(d) of the Act, commercial purpose does not include services availed of by a person exclusively for the purpose of earning his/her livelihood by means of self-employment.  On scrutiny of the documents, filed from the side of the Complainant, it appears that the Complainant has applied for electric service connection for running a shop of bag with the financial assistance of United Bank of India under Government sponsored PMEGP Scheme as an SSI unit having proper license.  It also appears from the papers submitted before the lender bank, i.e., UBI by the Complainant that the total cost of the project is Rs. 1,50,000/-.  Taking into consideration the meager size and nature of this venture, we are confident to hold that he has strided over this project for the purpose of running his livelihood by means of self-employment. Accordingly, the objection of OP does not hold any water.

As regards alleged objection from the side of one Sri Bhaghat Manna of Vill. Aror, admittedly, he is one of the co-sharers of the disputed plot of land.  As we know, every co-sharer has equal right on every inch of an undivided plot of land.  Needless to say, therefore, that objection from one co-sharer is no good ground to deprive another bona fide co-sharer from having electric service connection.  From the photocopy of parcha, filed by the Complainant, it appears that the Complainant is in possession of a portion of the land situated on dag no. 781.  So, he has got every right to have electric service connection at the intended place under his legal possession.

Now coming to the issue of alleged status-quo order, we find that there is nothing on record to show that any status quo order was in vogue as on the date of filing of this case by the Complainant or any date subsequent thereto. It is stated by the OP No. 1 that it received a copy of status quo order of Ld. Civil Judge (Jr. Division), 1^st Court, Tamluk from Sri Bhaghat Manna which was valid up to 10-11-2014, but, most surprisingly; it has not filed any copy thereof to acquaint us about the exact essence of the said order.  Moreover, from the Information Slip filed by the OP No. 1 it transpires that the status quo order was valid up to 22-04-2015.  However, although the OP No. 1 filed photocopy of the said information slip before us on 06-01-2016, for the reasons best known to it, the OP No. 1 filed information slip of a very old date which was of little relevance as on the date of submission of the same. On the other hand, the complainant has filed an Information Slip and such Information Slip shows that the impugned injunction order dated 29.05.2014 has not been extended any further. OP No. 1 has also filed an Information Slip stating that the TS 126 of 2013 is still pending. May be the said suit among the co-sharer is pending and we are afraid there is no injunction or restraining order either against the complainant of this case or against the OPs, as on this date. There being nothing on record to suggest that the status quo order has at all been extended by the Ld. Court and that the same is still in vogue, we see no reason whatsoever as to why a bona fide consumer would be robbed of his legitimate privilege of having an essential service to run his business; more so, while the Complainant has paid all the requisite charges and also complied with due formalities to get such connection.  The demand of OP No. 1 for a fresh way leave from the Complainant, thus, appears to be quite illogical, and stands to no bonafide reason.

On the other hand, it is significant to note that notwithstanding the OPs was under obligation to effect the intended service connection to the shop of the Complainant within one month from the date of receiving application from the latter, they miserably failed to discharge their obligation as envisaged under the Electricity Act.  Admittedly, while it received application from the Complainant on 14-03-2014, it carried out necessary inspection for the first time on 16-11-2014.  It, thus, clearly points out gross negligence/deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

Both these points are, thus, disposed of in favour of the Complainant.

Hence,

ORDERED

that C. C. No. 89/2015 be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP No. 1 and ex parte against the OP No. 2.  OPs are directed to effect electric service connection to the shop of the Complainant within 40 days from the date of this order and if required with the police help, and to pay compensation and litigation cost to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 1,000/-, respectively.  In case the OPs fail to comply with this order in toto within the stipulated time frame, the Complainant would be at liberty to execute this order in accordance with law in which case, OPs would be liable to pay fine @ Rs. 100/- per diem from this day till compliance of this order in toto.