SRI KAMAL DE, PRESIDENT
O R D E R
This case relates to claim for Electric connection in the Petitioner’s dwelling house.
The factual matrix of the case of the Petitioner, in short, is that the Petitioner is a permanent inhabitant in respect of the schedule of property as detailed in the petition of complaint. The Petitioner alleges that, he and his brother have acquired right, title, interest and possession over the scheduled property by virtue of a Deed of Gift being No. 6548 dated 01-12-2013, registered with the Office of A.D.S.R., Bhagwanpur. The said property is a Bastu land and the Petitioner and his brother have separate dwelling house situated therein and they are living in separate mess also. The Petitioner is facing great difficulties in maintaining his daily life without service of electric connection in his said dwelling house. The Petitioner, on several times, met the OP for effecting electric connection to his dwelling house and he also made an application in this regard to the Office of the OP No. 1 vide application no. 2000658145, duly received by the said OP on 19-10-2012. The OP No. 1, on receiving application for electrification, has arranged enquiry at the Petitioner’s dwelling house and being satisfied about the feasibility of effecting service connection to the said dwelling house of the Petitioner, issued quotation dated 24-11-2014 in favour of the Petitioner for new electric connection to his dwelling house. The Petitioner, accordingly, deposited the quotation money of Rs. 200/- on 28-11-2014 and also paid security deposit amount of Rs. 361/- on the self-same day. That apart, he also deposited the earnest money of Rs. 200/- on 19-10-2012. However, the OPs, failed and neglected to provide electric connection to the Petitioner’s house. The Petitioner, time and again, requested the OPs for providing service connection, but to no avail. On 30-03-2015, the Petitioner met the office staff of the OP No. 1 and he was replied in the negative. The cause of action arose on 30-03-2015. Hence, the case.
OP No. 1 contested the case by filing WV contending inter alia that the instant consumer case is not maintainable in its present form and prayer and the instant case does not come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The scheduled land is vague and indefinite.
It is, however, submitted by the OP No. 1 that upon receipt of quotation money, necessary direction was percolated down to M/s L&T Company to effect such connection, who tried twice to execute the work, but remained unsuccessful in their endeavour because of stiff resistance from neighbours.
Moreover, without having due consent from other co-share of the schedule property, they are not in a position to effect service connection to the Petitioner’s dwelling house.
Such hostile situation being beyond their control, they cannot be held liable for any kind of deficiency in service. This OP has, thus, prayed for dismissal of the case.
The short point for consideration in this case is; whether or not the Complainant is entitled to get electric connection in his dwelling house, as prayed for?
Decision with reasons
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties and other materials on record.
There are catena of case laws confirming that even would be consumer for electricity connection comes within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. Accordingly, we find no infirmity with the present complaint case being filed by the Petitioner seeking relief in the form of getting service connection as stated in the petition of complaint.
The main defense advanced by the OP No. 1 is that their authorized agency tried to effect service connection to the dwelling house of the Petitioner twice. However, on the face of stiff resistance from neighbours and other co-sharer of the scheduled property, they had to retreat.
The materials on record go to show that the Petitioner complied with all due formalities and deposited requisite fees as per the direction of the OPs. So, there can be no manner of doubt as regards the bona fide of his claim.
However, there is no evidence from the side of the OPs that they/their authorized agency 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 law sufficiently empowers the OPs to take appropriate legal action against agitators. Moreover, insofar as the OPs have received requisite money from the Petitioner, they cannot renege on their contractual obligation in such fashion. 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 authorized agency to effect service connection to the dwelling house of the Petitioner.
The other point, as agitated from the side of the OP No. 1, is that the property in question is a joint property and the Petitioner is not the sole owner of the same. Fact remains that every co-owner has got equal rights in every nook and corner of an undivided property. So, as a bona fide co-owner, holding valid right, title, interest and possession in the property in question, the legal right of the Petitioner to have service connection cannot be foiled by other co-owner(s). In any case, the Petitioner has filed a document before us wherefrom it transpires that his other brother, who happens to be the other co-owner of the property has given out “No Objection” to allow fixing and erection of the necessary apparatus on or within the premises at Dalbarh, J.L. No. 161, i.e., the dwelling house of the Petitioner. It also appears that the Petitioner and his brother have separate dwelling house and they live in separate mess also.
So, it is clear from the above that the OP No. 1 has miserably failed to drive home their viewpoints as stated in the WV.
Undisputedly, the Petitioner and his brother have right, title, interest and possession over the scheduled property under Mouza Dalbarh, J.L. No. 161, L.R. Khatian No. 197 (R.S.), Dag No. 76, District Purba Medinipur vide Deed of Gift being No. 6548 dated 01-12-1997, registered at A.D.S.R., Bhagwanpur. There is also no dispute as to the fact that the said property is a Bastu land and the Petitioner is in peaceful possession of a dwelling house in the said property by amicable settlement. From the documents on record, it also appears that the other brother of the Petitioner has also given out “No Objection” to the Office of the OP to allow fixing and erection of necessary apparatus on or within the premises at Dalbarh Mouza, J.L. No. 161. On the other hand, the Electricity Act, 2003, casts a duty upon the distribution licensee to provide service connection within one month from the date of receiving application from an applicant desiring such service connection. Clearly, the OPs neglected to discharge their obligation as contained u/s 43(1) of the Electricity Act. This is nothing but gross deficiency in service on their part.
On all such scores and counts, we are of opinion that the Petitioner is entitled to get electric connection in his dwelling house as mentioned in the schedule of the petition of complaint.
Hence,
ORDERED
that the C.C. No. 31/2015 be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP No. 1 and ex parte against the OP No. 2. The OPs are directed to stretch electric connection to the Petitioner’s dwelling house within 40 days from the date of passing this order, if required, with the assistance of police authority. The Petitioner is also entitled to get compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- from the OPs for his harassment, mental agony and pain on account of the gross deficiency in service on the part of the latter apart from litigation cost of Rs. 3,000/-. In case of non-compliance of this order by the OPs, the Complainant is at liberty to take recourse to execution so mandated under the 1986 Act in which case, the OPs shall be jointly and severally liable to pay fine @ Rs. 50/- per diem from the date of this order till compliance in toto.
