Case of the complainant, in brief, is that she applied for a domestic electric service connection before OP on 19-09-2003. On 09-02-2004, he deposited Rs. 835/- as per quotation issued by OP on 15-01-2004 besides complying with necessary formalities as required under the Electricity Act, but the OP has not effected electric service connection to her residence despite repeated requests. Hence, the instant case seeking a direction upon the OP to effect electric service connection to her residence and compensation to the extent of Rs. 40,000/- along with litigation cost Rs. 15,000/-.
The OP contested the case by filing written version wherein all the material allegations, as made by the complainant, have been denied. It is stated inter alia that owing to strong objection raised by one Shri Prafulla Kumar Kapat, they could not effect the service connection to the residence of the complainant and the matter of such objection had been communicated to the complainant with a request to arrange for a fresh way leave, which the complainant is yet to provide.
Points for consideration
- Whether there is any deficiency on the part of the OP for not giving electric service connection to the premises of the OP as applied for?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as sought for?
Decisions with reasons
Point no. 1 & 2:
These two points are taken up together for the sake of convenience of discussion.
Ld. Advocate on behalf of the complainant contended that the complainant had observed all formalities after depositing the requisite charge as per quotation issued by the OP. However, the OP has not taken necessary steps to effect electric service connection to her residence. All her vigorous perseverance – through repeated request letters as well as personal visits – went in vain.
Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the OP contended that owing to strong resistance of one Shri Prafulla Kumar Kapat they could not provide service connection to the premises of the complainant and accordingly, they requested her to provide a fresh way leave to enable them to execute the work. However, as no fresh way leave has been provided by the complainant, they are unable to effect service connection to the residence of the complainant.
We have carefully gone through the photocopies of entire set of documents submitted by the complainant and heard the submission of both sides.
Admittedly, the complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 835/- as per quotation issued by the OP after complying with necessary formalities. Materials on record go to show that the complainant submitted several follow up letters seeking the help of OP to get electric service connection to her residence. It appears from the photocopy of Parcha submitted by the complainant that she possess 0.01 decimal of plot under Mouza Shantipur, J.L. No. 003, Dag No. 81, Khatian No. 54/2, which has not been disputed by the OP.
As per OP, they could not effect electric connection to the premises of the complaint owing to strong objection raised by one Shri Prafulla Kumar Kapat.
However, it is not stated by the OP in what capacity said Shri Kapat raised such objection. Needless to say, such objection is not tenable under the law. There is no injunction being imposed by any competent Court of Law restraining the OP from effecting such electric connection. Above all, there is every reason to believe that the OP issued their quotation in favour of the complainant on being satisfied about the feasibility of giving such service connection and upon satisfactory compliance of necessary formalities by the applicant in question. If that be the case, there is no justification behind seeking fresh way leave from the complainant. Thus, in our considered view, OP neglected to discharge their bounden duty which tantamount to deficiency in service.
That apart, fact remains that the electricity has not been provided to the appellant while the law [Sec. 43(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003] enjoins duty upon the distribution licensee to provide electric service connection within a month after receipt of the application requiring such supply
Thus, it is clear from the conduct of OP that they acted in contravention of the Electricity Act which is a serious lapse on their part. It may not be out of context to mention in this respect that Sec. 43(3) of the Act states that:
“If a distribution licensee fails to supply the electricity within a period specified in subsection(1), he shall be liable to a penalty which may extend to one thousand rupees for each day of default.”
Anyway, in view of our foregoing discussion we hold that the complainant is entitled to get electric service connection at her residence and OP is liable to pay compensation and cost on account of their serious lapses in discharging their responsibilities.
These two points are disposed in favour of the complainant.
As a result, this case succeeds in part.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
that the instant case be and the same is allowed on contest in part. OP is directed to effect electric service connection to the premises of the complainant with police help, if required, within one month from the date of communication of this order. OP is further directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 1,000/- and cost Rs. 500/- within one month from this date i.d. the complainant is entitled to execute the order in accordance with law in which case the OP will be liable to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- per dien from this day till compliance.
S.S. Ali A.K. Bhattacharyya
Member President
