Date of filing : 07.09.2015
Date of S/R : 11.12.2015
Date of Order : 31.05.2016
Sri Alok Kumar Bhowmick
S/o- Late Kanailal Bhowmick,
Residing at Village-Shyampur, P.O. & P.S.- Shyampur,
District-Howrah-711314………………………………………………………….Complainant
Vs.
1) The Station Manager,
WBSEDCL, Ajodhya Customer Care Centre,
Ajodhya, Belpukur Shyampur,
District- Howrah-711314.
2) Shri Bibekananda Bhowmick, S./o- Late Asutosh Bhowmick,
Residing at Village-Shyampur, P.O. & P.S.- Shyampur,
Howrah-711314.
3) Smt. Sita Bhowmick,
W/o- Shri Bibekananda Bhowmick
Residing at Village-Shyampur, P.O. & P.S.- Shyampur,
Howrah-711314
F I N A L O R D E R
P R E S E N T
………………………………………………………………………………………..
President : Shri B. D. Nanda.
Member : Smt. J. Saha.
Member : Shri A. K. Pathak.
This is an application U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, filed by the Petitioner, Alok Kumar Bhowmick against the O.P.s, Station Manager , WBSEDCL, Ajodhya CCC, Belpukur, Shyampur and two others praying for direction upon the O.P.s 1 to install electricity in the premises of the petitioner if necessary with police assistance by installing two numbers of electric polls at the 4 feet wide common passage and also directing O.P. 2 & 3 not to raise objection in such installation work .
The case of the petitioner is that he is a consumer under the O.P. having no electric connection in his house situated at RS Dag No. 2537, L.R. Dag 2566 L.R Khatian No. 189 ,at Mouja Shyampur P.S. Shyampur and applied for electric connection before the O.P. 1. WBSEDCL and paid the security deposit of Rs. 350/- and service connection charge Rs. 20,819/- which included the cost of two polls. On receiving the said sum the O.P. 1 went to carry out the job for installation of polls but could not do the same as the O.P. 2 & 3 raised objection. On the western side o f the LR. Dag 2566 of the petitioner, there is a 4 feet common passage running from north to south i.e. from Panchayat Road to Dag No. 2652 i.e. upto southern side of the property of petitioner. The L.R. Dag. 2566 measuring 12 Satak. There are other occupants who use the common passage without any disturbance and in the said passage electric polls are already installed for occupants of Dag. No. 2536,2537,2538 and 2532 who have been enjoying electricity . It is true that men of O.P. 1 went to the spot for doing the job but could not do so due to objection raised by O.P. 2 & 3 and taking that plea the O.P. 1 doing unfair trade practice and so the petitioner filed this case.
The O.P. 1 contested the case by filing a written version denying the allegation made in the petition against them and submitted that due to physical objection raised by O.P. 2 &3 their men could not install the electric connection and they informed the matter in Shyampur police station but the police did not help and so they could not give connection even if they are ready and willing to give connection.
O.P.s 3 though appeared in the case did not file written version and the O.P. 2, Bibekananda Bhowmick, also did not appear and thus the case is heard exparte against them.
On the above cases of the parties the following issues are framed :
- Is the case maintainable in the present form ?
- Whether the petitioner has any cause of action to file the case ?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.1 & 2 ?
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to the get the reliefs as prayed for ?
Decision with reason
All this issues are taken up together for the shake of convenience and brevity of discussion and to skip of reiteration . In support of his case the petitioner Alok Kr. Bhowmick filed affidavit in chief along with documents which proved the fact that the petitioner approached the O.P. 1 and deposited the requisite fees being the security deposit , earnest money etc. but O.P. 1 submitting that even if being licensee and service provider they are always ready and willing to provide new electric connection the petitioner yet their men could not work in the four feet common passage as the O.P. 2 , Bibekananda Bhowmick and O.P. 3 Sita Bhowmick raised objection in installing the two polls in the 4 feet common passage and also the local police did not help the O.p. 1 for doing the job without the order of any court.
Our Hon’ble Supreme Court as well our National Commission and our High Court categorically opined that even an unauthorised occupier is entitled to get electricity and then what to speak about the present petitioner who is owner of the case mentioned house and also having right to use the common passage . Our Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case between Sri Chandu Khamaru Vs. Nayan Malik & Ors opined that Distribution Licensee should find out any other way through which electric line could be drawn for supply of electricity to the applicant. This should be done as a distributing licensee had a duty to supply electricity to the applicant. Our Hon’ble High Court in Kolkata in the case between Abhimanyu Mazumder Vs. Superintendent & Anr. opined that a person in settled possession of property be it trespasser, unauthorised encroacher or squatter of any premises, can apply for supply of electricity without consent of owner and is untitled to get electricity and enjoy same until he is evicted by due process of law. It is the duty of O.P. 1 who is to find out solution as to how they would provide electric connection to the petitioner and no alibi would be accepted by the Forum like stating that the objection was raised at the time of installation of connection and in that event obviousluy the local police would render all possible action to help the O.P. 1 . Being a service provider the WBSEDCL cannot deny such connection on any plea and while drawing such line they would be provided with adequate police assistance so that none of the neighbours or co-sharers could object as they all enjoy electricity and can never stand on the way of the petitioner and depriving him from getting electricity because it is the basic need of a man in the present day life.
Thus keeping in mind the submission of ld. Counsel of the both sides and also the facts of the case as came out from the petition of complain and the written version as well as oral and documentary evidences this Forum finds that in view of above discussion and findings the petitioner is entitled to get the electric connection as prayed for and O.P. 1 is to provide such connection .
Thus the case is succeeds.
Court fees paid is correct.
Hence,
Ordered,
that the CC 317/2015 be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.P.1 but exparte against O.P. 2 & 3 without cost.
The petitioner is entitled to get fresh electric connection and the O.P. 1 is directed to give such connection to the petitioner within 30 days from the date of this order and O.P.s 2 &3 are directed not to stand on the way of such installation and both the petitioner as well as the O.P. 1 to inform such date of installation to the local Inspector In-charge of the police who would soon render police assistance for such installation . The O.P.s failing to do so the petitioner would be at liberty the put the order in execution.
Supply the copy of the order to the parties free of cost.
Dictated and corrected
by me
( B. D. Nanda)
President, C.D.R.F. Howrah
