SMT. BANDANA ROY, PRESIDENT,

            The gist of the complaint case is that the complainant applied for a new domestic connection in his dwelling house being application No. 2002296031 and also he complied  with all other formalities in this regard. The OP Distribution Co. was satisfied to cause inspection of the dwelling house of the complainant and  issued quotation bearing Memo No. /Quot/03 dated 14.09.2016 for new service connection. The petitioner deposited security deposit of Rs. 1164/-  and Rs. 1000/- for service connection charge on 16.09.2016 against valid receipts. But after a lapse of one month the OP did not effect any connection and thereafter the complainant repeatedly made contact in the office of the Op for effecting the service connection but till now there is no response. The complainant stressed that there is a common pathway and the bastu land he lives in with his family members are free from any sort of  encumbrances. Lastly when the complainant repeatedly urged in the office of the OP, the OP issued a letter on16.02.2017 and avoided their liability.  Then on 09.08.2017the complainant issued a letter with a hand sketch map through registered post to the OP and prayed for effecting the connection.  But in vain, the OP members deliberately avoided the connection till now.

So, this complaint with a prayer for a direction to the OP effect the electric connection in his residential house and other reliefs.

The OP contested the complaint and filed written version. They denied all the material allegations and claimed dismissal of the complaint.

The defense of this OP is that on receipt of the quotation  the OP deputed their assigned contractor and necessary equipments and three electric posts required, for drawing the electrical line and to effect service connection but they faced strong resistance from Musiar Middya , Diluar Hosssaion, Firoj Middya  and others in drawing the electric service  line through the route shown by the complainant. The matter of such resistance was duly informed to the complainant and was requested to submit alternative way leave for drawing the line, but the complainant could not show any alternative route  which the complainant admitted by his letter dated 17.03.2017.  The OP stated that there is a strong land dispute between the complainant and his co-sharers.  This   OP denies any kind of deficiency on their part and clearly submits that they are already ready to install the electric connection if the complainant is able to show alternative way leave.

The points need be considered here is (1) whether the case is maintainable and (2) whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for.

                                                                                  DECISION WITH REASONS.

Both the points are taken up together for discussion for the sake of convenience and brevity.

Perused the complaint and the documents filed by the complainant in support of his case. Seen the questionnaires and reply thereto filed  by both the parties, the documents and heard the submission of the ld. Advocates for the parties. Considered.

It is the case of the complainant that after inspection the OP sent quotation and as per that quotation the complainant deposited the security deposit of Rs. 1164/-  and Rs. 1000/- for service connection charge on 16.09.2016 against valid receipts. But after a lapse of one month the OP did not effect any connection and thereafter the complainant repeatedly made contact in the office of the Op for effecting the service connection but till now there is no response.

On the other hand the OP stated in the WV that they engaged contractor for effecting the service connection but due to strong resistance of some neighbors of the complainant, on the ground of land dispute, they could not install the posts or effect the service connection in the premises of the complainant.

In the examination in chief filed by the complainant he stated that the complainant has right, title interest and possession over the land an after due permission he has constructed the building and living therein with his family members without having electricity in the same.  He also stated in para 15 of his examination in chief that on 09.08.2017 he sent a letter along with hand sketch map through registered post to the OP and said letter was received by the OP on 10.08.2017 in response to the memo. sent to him  by the OP on 16.02.2017 regarding their inability to effect the service connection. The OP stated in answer to question no. 6 that in copy of order dated 18.10.2017 passed by the ld. Executive Magistrate in MP case no. 479/17 u/Sec.  144(2) Cr PC issued by the Ld. Executive Magistrate at the initiation of the complainant Mustak Midya, the  BL & LRO Kolaghat was also directed to cause inquiry over the matter vide order dated 18.10.2017 in MP Case No. 479 of 2017 U/Sec. 144(2) Cr.PC. as  has been stated by the OP during answer to question no. 2 of the complainant.

Seen the order sheet in MP Case No. 479/17 dated 18.10.17 wherein the BL & LRO  and the IC of Kolaghat B/H have been directed to cause inquiry  and submit report within three weeks.

But no further steps have been taken by the OP to call the inquiry report from the concerned officers to facilitate supply of electricity in the premises of the complainant which is completely a domestic service connection. Since 16.09.2016 the matter is pending and the order of the ld. Executive Magistrate was passed on 18.10.2017.

Also from the record we cannot find any document of land/civil dispute in the fore corner of the record. The persons alleged to have raised objection in the installation work have not also come before this Forum with their specific objection.  The hand sketch map appended with the complaint petition also suggest that  the premises of the complainant over plot no. 371/995 is situated by the side of a common pathway which has not been disputed by the OP.

‘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 on 16.09.2016 against valid receipts 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 of default.  That being the statutory provision we do not find why the OP 1 withheld the distribution of electric supply to the occupier of the premises, the complainant herein.

Considering all the pros and cons as above, we are of the view that the complainant is entitled to get eclectic connection  in his domestic premises. However we are not entitled to grant any other relief in this regard as we find that the OP has also tried to  give service connection in the premises of the complainant.

Both the points are answered accordingly.   

Hence, it is

O R D E R E D

That CC/ 535 of 2017 be and the same is allowed on contest  against the OP Electricity Board.

The OP is hereby directed to effect the service connection in the premises of the complainant through the common passage shown by the complainant within one month from the date of this order and in doing so if any resistance arises, they will take police help from the concerned police station, failing which the complainant will be entitled to put this order into execution.

There will be no order as to compensation or litigation cost.

Let copy of this judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost.