West Bengal

Dakshin Dinajpur

CC/14/2013

Rekha Jha, D/O- Late Kameshwar Jha - Complainant(s)

Versus

Station Manager, Customer Care Centre, balurghat, WBSEDCL - Opp.Party(s)

26 Apr 2013

ORDER

Rekha Jha, daughter of late Kameswar Jha along with her widow mother has been occupying and residing in two rooms in the ground floor owned by her uncle, namely, Shyamananda Jha, at the address given in the complaint petition. She filed an application for getting connection for supply of electricity at her occupied portion and deposited Rs. 5/ as application fee together with Rs. 200/- as  earnest money respectively, vide receipt No.9507847 dt. 01.04.2011 and 9508817 dt. 8.4.11. She waited for the connection but to no avail. Repeated personal visits also did not yield any result, but ultimately was told that unless the outstanding dues in respect of another commercial connection (already disconnected) in that premises is paid, no new connection will be given. Being frustrated she had no other option, but to file the case for proper relief.

 

            The OPs having denied all the material allegations sought to resist the complaint petition  by submitting a composite written version contending inter alia that the connection could not be effected till date for the following reasons 

 

1. On inspection it is found that there is an existing electric connection having same holding number;
2. Petitioner is not the owner of the said house nor she has got any holding number in her name;
3. She did not supply NO OBJECTION certificate from the actual owner of the premises in whose favour holding number has been allotted;
4. There is huge amount of outstanding electricity bill for the existing connection in said premises for non-payment of which the connection has been discontinued.

 

            Accordingly prayer is for dismissal of the application.

 

                                                                                                

            Admittedly, the complainant applied for new domestic electric connection in her name before the Balurghat CCC vide application No. 4000030636 and also paid Rs. 205/- vide receipts mentioned ante. By such act, the complainant applied for service connection from the OP service provider and by implication undertook to pay the balance amount as per law. Therefore, she is a consumer as per Sec.2(d) of the CP Act, 1986.

 

            Undisputedly, the entire property in question a portion of which is occupied by the complainant which initially belonged to Fekon Jha, Kameswar Jha & Kulkul Jha. The complainant is the descendant of Fekon Jha. There is no evidence that the complainant by some reason or other ceased to be a co-sharer of that property. Besides it, we find from the complaint itself that the complainant with her mother are occupier of two rooms that falls in the portion belonging to her uncle Shyamnanda Jha who has sworn an affidavit raising his No Objection in the matter of complainant’s getting of electricity in the portion occupied by her.

 

            One of the objections in not extending the connection as raised is that the applicant is not the owner of the property. We have already noticed that the applicant is one of the co-sharers. Even for the sake of argument if we assume but not hold that she ceased to be a co-sharer yet it goes unchallenged and also supported by affidavit sworn by Shyamnanda Jha that the applicant is occupier of two rooms of the portion belonging to said Shyamnanda Jha. As per Sec. 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 even an occupier of a premises or a portion thereof is entitled to the supply of electricity.

 

            It has been contended from the side of OP that there was another connection in the said premises which has since been disconnected because of non-payment of huge outstanding bill amount. Citing this incident Ld. Adv. for OP-2 referred to a decision reported in

 

                                                                                               

AIR 2001 KER 51 and submitted that the complainant is not entitled to second connection. But that decision is quite distinguishable in respect of facts of this case. That case was in respect of a transferee where there was outstanding from the previous consumer. But in the present case, the applicant is neither a transferee nor there is nexus or privity of contract between herself, previous consumer and the service provider binding the applicant to pay the arrears, if any, in respect of earlier connection. That apart, the earlier connection was commercial in nature standing in the name of a person other than the person who has applied for domestic supply. So, submission of Ld. Adv. for OPs is of no consequence.

 

            Another objection is want of holding no. in favour of the complainant. It speaks of no dispute that the entire property was under the joint ownership and separate holding no. is available only when the property is partitioned amongst the co-sharer under the law either by registered deed of partition or by decree of a court. It may so happen that a joint family may disintegrate pending partition of the joint property. If so happens, will the disintegrated families go without electricity till holding no. is available? Ld. Adv. for the OP did not make any authority available to us showing that separate holding no. is a sine-qua-non for obtaining supply of electricity. Even if that be so, such requirement is applicable to owner of the property. But Sec. 43 of the Act is an enabling provision for the occupier of a premises or a portion thereof to have connection for supply of electricity who may not be an owner. Therefore, necessity of having holding no. as raised by OP appears to have no concern with the occupier.

 

            Supply of electricity is an essential service and is extremely necessary element for living a smooth life. No one should be deprived of it on some flimsy ground having no sanction of law.

 

            In this case, the complainant is found to have all essential qualities to obtain the supply of electricity in the portion occupied by her,

 

                                                                                               

the owner of which has issued ‘No Objection’ in the form of affidavit duly filed in the Forum.

            We find no ground to deny extending supply of electricity in the portion occupied by her.

            In the result, the petition  of complaint duly registered as CC. 14/2013 is liable to be allowed, and is allowed accordingly. Hence, it is

 

                                                O R D E R E D

 

            that the OPs are directed to extend supply of electricity in the portion occupied by the complainant on her identification of the same.

The OPs will issue quotation within one month from the date of this order and will extend supply of electricity within the 15 days thereafter provided the complainant, in the meantime, observes all legal and statutory obligations.

 

            Let plain copies of this order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost.