By : SMT SYEDA SHAHNUR ALI, MEMBER

          The case of the complainant in short is that he and his brother purchased a bastu plot of land bearing plot no. 66/889 under Khatian No. 100 of mouza Naikundi measuring 3 decs and the petitioner constructed a dwelling house for living with his family members since 1980-. The petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 200/- on 07.07.211 for taking electric connection being consumer No. 200034407 by form No. 2000012712 and also deposited a sum of Rs. 257/-. In spite of repeated reminders and request the OP did not give any electric connection to the house of the petit9iner. The petitioner sent lawyer’s notice upon the OP 19.08.2016 with a request to give electric connection in his dwelling house but without any result.

          In the above premises, the petitioner has filed this complaint with the prayers made therein.

          The OP West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. Nandakumar CCC contested the complaint by filing WV and WNA. The OP denied all the allegations made in the complaint and stated inter-alia that the petitioner filed an application for domestic service connection in his house and also deposited the service connection charge and security deposit for the same. After receipt o the application the OP made usual spot inquiry and sent quotation for the required costs for one PCC polies which were essential for effecting the service connection. Thereafter when the contractor went to the spot for the service connection they faced strong objecting from the neighboring people headed by Jahangir Khan and he was bound to abandon the work. The matter was informed to the complainant in writing but he refused to acknowledge the receipt. The OP further states that the petitioner and his brother purchased only 03 decs of land of plot no. 666/889 out of 09 decs. The OP is ready to give the electric connection if the petitioner and his co-sharers amicably agreed to allow the contractor to draw the electric line. There is no wilful latches on the part of this OP and hence, the OP prays for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

          The point for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to get the relief/reliefs as prayed in the petition of complaint.

Decision with Reasons.

Electricity being an essential necessity one cannot be barred from taking the benefit of the same from the Licensee. As such as per Section 43 (2) of the Electricity Act 2003 ’Every distribution licensee shall on an application by the owner or occupier  of any premises give supply of electricity to such premises within one month after receipt of the application for requiring such supply. Moreover the OP had received charges in 2011 and as sub-section 2 of Sec. 43 it shall be the duty of every distribution licensee to provide ,if required , electric plant or electric line for giving electric supply to the premises specified in Sub-section 1. Section 43 envisages “ if a  distribution licensee  fails to supply electricity within a period  specified in Sub-sec. 1 he shall be liable to pay penalty  which may extend to Rs. 1000/-  for each day of default.  That being the statutory provision we do not find why the OPs 1 and 2 withheld the distribution of electric supply to the occupier of the premises when admittedly the complainant deposited the earnest money and the service connection charge in the year 2011.

           On going through the records we find that the complainant has delayed in praying the reliefs before this Forum and in support of his contention he filed an application u/sec 5 of the Limitation Act 1963. The instant application was disposed of and allowed without costs.

        It is found that there is no bonafide mistake on the part of the complainant, rather the OP after receiving the earnest money for the service connection had also made spot inquiry and found that for drawing the electric line one PCC pole was required and accordingly the OP service quotation for such work and OP engaged M/S. Arya Electricals for the job. The OP states that they faced strong physical resistance from the local people under the leadership of one Jahangir Khan while effecting the service connection to the house of the petitioner which resulted in the abandonment of the work. But the OP did not inform of such resistance to the local police station while they were fully aware that the resistance had been created under the leadership of Jahangir Khan. It is the duty of the OP to provide service connection once they have received the earnest money and quotation amount. As such it is the deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite party. The requirement of one PCC Pole as contended by the OP the Station Manager, Nandakumar CCC is the matter between the Agency taking up the job and the OP and the complainant would not be made to suffer for this internal problems.

          Hence, it is

O R D E R E D

          That the complaint case being No 208 of 2016 be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP.

The OP is directed to provide service connection in the premises of the complainant within one month from the date of this order by taking help from the local police station if necessary and effect the electric service connection in the premises of the complainant and also pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation  and litigation cost  within one month from the date of this order failing which the OP shall be liable to pay Rs 100/- per diem as punitive charge which would be  payable to Consumer Welfare Fund.

          Let copy of the judgment be supplied to all the parties free of costs.